Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 7 o'clock and we welcome you to the planning commission meeting on December 11th, 2025. Welcome the public for coming tonight. We will open with a pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Martino. Everybody rise. with me. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I move to approve tonight's agenda. I'll second. I have a motion by Commissioner Butler and a second by Commissioner Martin. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's staff reports? I'll make a motion to approve tonight's staff report.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Patton and a second by Commissioner Butler. All those in favor say I. I.

All those opposed. Motion carries. Are there any declarations of conflicts and abstensions from the commission members? Seeing none, we will go to item number one, which is a public hearing for code text amendment section 10-11D-2-C permitted principal uses in the commercial sales 2 CS-2 zone. This public hearing is to consider the request of Kevin Mulvi for Questar Gas Company to amend city code section 10-11D-2- C permitted principal uses in the commercial sales-2 CS2 zone to add use 4824 gas pressured control stations to the list of permitted uses within the zone. Jacob.

All righty. Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Jacob Hawkins from the planning department. So the first item that we have for today is a request to add use 4824 to the CS2 zone. Um now use 4824 is for gas pressure control stations. And you'll see a few of those here and there throughout the city. Um but just in short, a gas pressure control station is a facility that reduces high pressure gas from transmission pipelines to lower safer pressures sustainable for residential, commercial, and industrial use. A site for gas for a gas pressure control station typically includes like an enclosed area with a maintenance shack and the necessary pipes and equipment to provide services to the area. And because this use is for utilities, no parking requirements are really necessary except those needed by employees visiting the site for maintenance and management. A gas pressure control stations are necessary utility stations that provide services to the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial buildings. The use 4824 is permitted in residential zones, but was never introduced to the commercial sales 2 zone. and staff finds that since the proposed use poses no issue to residential zones, there should similarly be no issue with permitting the proposed use in the CS2 zone. So, as such, staff recommends the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the planning uh sorry, to the city council for the proposed text amendment. And then here, this is kind of what one of those stations looks like. So, usually they're kind of fenced in a little bit and then they've got a little maintenance shack and a couple pipes that stick out of the ground, but overall they're quiet. They're pretty low impact. They're just a utility that's just needed for a few different areas and it's just not permitted in the CS2 zone just yet.

Thank you, Jacob. Does anyone have any questions for Jacob? Seeing none, is the applicant here? If you just want to come to the podium and just state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Melissa Dadovich and I'm an engineer at Enbridge Gas. Hi. Hello. Did you want to add anything to Jacob's?

I think Jacob did a great job of explaining what a regulator station is and does. It basically takes high pressure gas and inside that um what here does a maintenance check is where the gas is transferred from high pressure to low pressure. So within those buildings that are on those sites, that's where that mechanism is, where the equipment is. So they do maintain that equipment, but that is where that sort of change happens. Um yeah, they're really safe. They're in a lot of neighborhoods. I have one nearby in my local park. Um it's just just a building and pipe that's out of the ground. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? How much area is required? How much are we required?

Yeah, your your fenced area. I mean, I I've seen them varying in different sizes. What you're proposing, what is the square footage of the ground that you need?

So, the square footage that So, we first start with buying a parcel of property and we tend to design our gas regulator stations to fit within that those means. It depends on the size of the station. If we have a what we call 3x3 station, depending on the regulator size, those we aim for a 100 by 100 foot parcel. If it's a 2 by two, which this one is a 2 by two, we aim for less than that. And um we have different kinds of design parameters that we we have in our standard practices. We need some it needs to be 10 feet away from the fence and then we need um that above above ground piping a certain footage away from the building. So we we'll design it to the parcel that we have, but then when we have a large parcel, we'd like to do it in a square, but We're not the part that we're looking at is not a square. So, we'll have to make a few changes just to fit within that.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. And this is a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open it up to the public. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I'll bring it up to the commissioners for discussion or a motion. I move the planning commission

just just really quick. I just want to make sure. So in the the notice it says Questar Gas Company and she said Nbridge Gas Company. Is that going to be do we need to make any changes there? Okay. Okay. So there's no issues. Okay. Just wanted to check that.

Good. I move the planning commission forward a recommendation of of approval to the city council for request of Kevin Mulvy for the proposed amendment city code section 10-11D- 2- C permitted uses by adding use 4824 gas pressure control stations to the list of permitted uses in the commercial sales two zone and adopting the zip exhibits, conditions, and findings of the staff report.

I'll second. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Nelson and a second by Commissioner Martin. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Item number two on tonight's agenda. I'm just going to read the good part this time. Uh public hearing to consider the request of Brian Fruit to amend city code section 10-11F-2-D permitted principal uses in the general commercial CG zone to add use 3424 metal working machinery and equipment to the list of permitted uses within the zone. Jacob.

All righty. Thank you. So the second item that we have for tonight is also a request to add a specific use to a commercial zone. Now this one is to add use 3424 metalwork machinery and equipment to the general commercial zone. So let's start off by looking at all of the areas zoned general commercial. So we've got a couple places up here on State Street. This one's kind of the largest portion right here. And then we've got a couple other small portions out over here a little bit off of State Street and Main Street. Um now this particular area right here where we've got the majority of the general commercial zone. Uh now this area used to be in the manufacturing zone a long time ago and then it got reszoned into the general commercial and then now the future land use map in the general plan designates a lot of this portion as being in the downtown village zone. Uh which provides further insight into what direction that the city is anticipating as this area is further developed. But in short, the city has a limited amount of land zoned as general commercial, which will likely be reduced even further as development continues within the area between State Street and the railroad tracks. With that being said, let's go to the land use code numbers and take a look at what this use entails. Let me zoom in a little bit here. So, use 3420 is machinery. 3424 is metal working machinery and equipment. Uh so this is a manufacturing type use that includes tool and die shops, small machine shops, metal boring, brushing, cutting, drilling, milling and so on. Now, this type of use involves anything from a drill press and a block of metal to a small enclosed CNC machine to a whole production and assembly line with large noisy machines typically used in

heavy manufacturing areas. Now, the applicant originally submitted their request because they have a potential tenant that would utilize CNC machines to manufacture small, highly specialized valving for suspension, primarily for dirt bikes. Uh, but the tenant would also be able to machine valves for side by sides and other automobiles or kind of whatever's needed for them. This is kind of what that looks like. Um, so they're pretty small. Um, and the applicant states that the CNC machines would be smaller machines that are not completely encased or sorry that are completely encased and produce little enough noise to where ear protection is not necessary. About as loud as like an overhead furnace. Uh the tenant would receive deliveries once a month in the form of 1-in aluminum bar stock machine. Uh they would machine the stock down into individual parts, assemble the parts together to create the specialized valve, and then distribute the finished part to installers in other locations across the country in including to other locations where parts can be anodized or colored or things like that. Uh shipments for these deliveries would be small enough for standard postal services such as USPS to handle. Now, the building where the tenant would go in is approximately 40 4,700 square ft with about 3,000 square feet of usable space for machining equipment like the CNC machines. Two employees would begin at the location with the potential to increase to four maybe six employees later. Uh the proposed use would primarily consist of the manufacturing of the specialized valves and online sales that would provide sales tax. Uh now while no showroom or storefront is considered at this point, the applicant would be willing to add a showroom for customers if direct sales are necessary. Uh 400 amps of 208 power are provided to the building each hour. Uh however, the proposed use is capable of operating on

200 amps per hour. So now that we know what the applicant is requesting, staff's recommendation stems from two points. First, the proposed use is manufacturing in nature and does not meet the purposes of the uh general commercial zone. And second, the proposed use does not limit the scale of manufacturer, which could allow for a more intense business into the zone that is not compatible with other permitted uses or with surrounding properties. So to the first point, the proposed use is manufacturing in nature and does not meet the purposes of the general commercial zone. So the purpose of the general commercial zone um kind of go here. It states that the uses characteristic of this zone, let me actually it's right down here. this part that I wanted to uh emphasize for the most part uh the uses characteristic of this zone will be a wide range of retail stores, shops, services and offices. This zone may be applied to areas which have existing offices, heavy commercial and institutional uses. It is the intent that the general commercial zone contain a mixture of compatible uses. Now the international zoning code um let me actually pull this up real quick. go to chapter two on their definitions. Uh now the international zoning code provides definitions for light and heavy uh commercial uses. So we'll kind of go to these sections right here. Hopefully you can see this well enough. There we go. So, we've got light and heavy. I can't really highlight those, but that's okay. Uh, so heavy commercial, an establishment or business that generally

uses open sales yards, outside equipment storage, or outside activities that generate noise or other impacts considered incompatible with less intense uses. Typical businesses in this definition are lumber yards, construction specialty services, heavy equipment suppliers, or building contractors. I think another good example of this would be like auto sales or service or something like that because those ones usually bring in a lot of traffic or have noise or things like that. Um, for light commercial, an establishment or business that generally has retail or wholesale offices, uh, sorry, wholesale sales, office uses or services which do not generate noise or other impacts. considered incompatible with less intense uses. Typical businesses in this definition are retail stores, offices, catering services, or restaurants. Something that's pretty nice is the international zoning code also provides a definition for light manufacturing uses. So, if I come down here, manufacturing, we've got heavy, light, and medium, but we we'll just talk about light for right now. Uh, light manufacturing is the manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment, including research activities conducted entirely within an enclosed structure with no outside storage, serviced by a modest volume of trucks or vans, and imposing a negligible impact on the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust, or pollutants. So, Pleasant Grove has four different commercial zones that are not located within the Grove zone or the downtown village zone. Uh, so we've got the neighborhood commercial zone, you have the commercial sales, commercial sales too, and then the general commercial zone. Now, uses in the neighborhood commercial zone are generally low in intensity and include many small retail or restaurant uses that would be compatible adjacent to residential uses. The commercial sales zone permits

additional commercial uses beyond what would typically be uh permitted in the neighborhood commercial zone. Um and similarly the CS2 and the general commercial zones permit even further intense commercial uses. And in fact the general commercial zone allows for some heavy commercial uses such as car sales and service like we talked about uh animal hospital services or even warehousing as a conditional use permit. However, the proposed uh use is light manufacturing in nature uh because they're actually manufacturing the product. Uh and the purpose of the general commercial sales zone, sorry, the general commercial zone does not intend for the incorporation of such types of uses. Such uses are typically a better fit for other manufacturing zones such as the business manufacturing park or the manufacturing distribution zones whose purposes are specifically to permit manufacturing uses. And of course there has been an increase in demand for flex space and other manufacturing areas and the areas that are currently zoned for manufacturing are nearly built out. Uh in fact, some of the demand for flex space has led to developers uh proposing to create flex space buildings outside of the already established manufacturing zones such as in the general commercial zone, the Grove interchange subdist or the Grove mixed housing subdist. And once these buildings have been built, then tenants oftentimes are not aware of the limitations of the permitted uses within the commercial zones, which eventually becomes an issue uh for the property owners of the flex space buildings. Uh overall, there is an opportunity for the city to consider amending the purposes of some commercial zones in response to the demand for light manufacturing uses, especially if such uses would not have an impact on surrounding properties and considering the amount of land left over for manufacturing uses. However, the city has already established what the vision of the city's future is through the

general plan, which does not include the expansion of manufacturing areas or uses at this time. And then to the second point, the proposed use does not limit the scale of manufacturer. Now the applicant has mentioned that certain qualifying provisions would be acceptable to tie to the proposed use as long as the proposed use is approved. Uh some of those qualifying provisions may include limiting the square footage or amperage of the proposed use uh to limit the possibility of larger scale production uh and machinery. Um but overall uh that staff's recommendation is uh one of denial because it doesn't meet the current uh purposes of the general commercial zone. Uh and I can take any questions.

Any questions for Jacob? Thank you so much, Jacob. Thank you. Is the applicant here? You're welcome to come to the podium if you just want to state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Brian Fruit. I'm the owner of Temponogonga Cycer. We built that um complex and opened that store in uh 1996 before that area was really um viable to do that with. So, um, basically what we're looking at are some enclosed. So, if I back up a little bit, you know, the national government is pushing for the United States to make stuff here and not import it from other countries. And they're putting massive tariffs in place for anybody that wants to import, whether it be China or Taiwan or Myar or wherever it may be. So, this gentleman would like to be able to make these parts in the United States. They're enclosed, super clean CNC machines. If you go look at the different buildings we have, we're very clean in what we do. um with all of our buildings and how we maintain it. There'll be nothing outside of the building, but they would be these metal boxes and you put a piece of metal in there and it spits out a a part and then you would take that and anodize it somewhere else and then bring it back and assemble it. So, it's actually quite a clean operation um because we don't want obviously to have anything messy in our building. Um so, we met with the city on this. this is the process that we were told to go through. Um, and so we're trying to see if this is going to be a possibility.

Thank you, Brian. Does anyone have any questions for Brian?

Thank you so much. And this is a public hearing, so I will open it up to the public. And seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it up to the commissioners for a discussion or a motion. It's it's the same thing we've heard several times that very specific use might not be terribly, you know, difficult to put in that space, but if you open up for the entire purpose that allows gives a it opens up a door that's a lot bigger than just what uh is being proposed to manufacturers. We need to think about the entire code and not just you know that simple valve.

Well, it goes to the conversation that we had last time about amperage and stuff or was it two times ago, right?

And so, you know, that is one of the the things that is, you know, mentioned in the staff notes that we can take into consideration. Um, you're right, Jim, as far as the entire zone and uh the effect that it has there. Well, and looking at our general plan, it just doesn't really fit with that general plan either. Um, as we're trying to make this city, we're trying to develop our downtown. We're trying to get more of a keep a whole hometown feel, but still grow. Um, I know we spent a lot of time on that general plan and I don't like to see that lost.

Oh, no, not at all. And that's that is a struggle. I I don't want to invite other manufacturing into that area which if we change the use is effectively what we'll be doing. True. That is true. Well, like I said, metal work is just so broad. I deal with that every day in my uh my career and there is so much involved in that that It worries me to open it up to that that entire use.

I'm sure this applicant and what he's doing would be nice and clean, but that's it. Opens up the whole zone. We'll go back. Can you go back to the zone map? Say I'd like to see a closer view of the map. You guys want to see an aerial view of the property as well? Yes, please. Because if it's the CG zone, then we're dealing with the area that borders State Street on either side, east and west between the railroad tracks and pretty much and State Street just to the west of it is quite a bit of down in the manufacturing.

I I'll help seven or is that second 220 South? Okay. So, I'm going to show you a little bit. Is that okay if I jump on and just show you a little bit about the map, Madame Chair? Okay, so this is the CG zone. Uh the property that the applicant is talking about is the one right here. Actually, I is the ones in the back. This used to be in the manufacturing zone long ago. Yeah. So that's I think you explained that correct? Did you explain that? Yeah, it used to be in the manufacturing. So the buildings facing State Street, they of course they change a lot. Actually, all these buildings are kind of like semi- new. when you guys drive there, you guys can see some of the new buildings.

I think where the applicant is is trying to to uh run the business is on the property right here. Um, however, I'm going to do an aerial view, but this is so his bound uh he has boundaries with the manufacturing zone in the back. Yeah, I do this really quick so you guys can take a look at it. Let me see. Give me a second. No, not that building. But we're not talking about that building. So,

yeah. So, this is the this uh this is the manufacturing one right here. It's a super uh Yeah. old development. And the cycl is right here. Is that is that correct? Is that what the Yeah, right here. And the buildings are right here. If you guys can see the the I we understand how actually we can take a look at right here. So we going to go on stay street and we can see that the this is the cycle and it's facing the by now I'm pretty sure it's a landmark in G city. I see it every day right there. So and then there's an entrance and it's on those buildings right here in the back. These concrete block buildings right here. Yeah. Is that that correct?

Yes. Okay. So yeah, that's where the that's where the business I understand that we're talking about a uh for the entire zone adding a manufacturing use in the entire zone and sorry this one

right here. Yeah. So uh as you guys can see the the when we change the zone we just use this property line right here as the as the sound uh as the zone boundary. This buildings right here in the back and this is the street view of the buildings. Yeah, it goes it goes on either side of stay street and it's car dealerships right along here.

Do you guys have lasers? Just a little bit. I want to see that. It's just that that section you're on the cursor. That's what we're talking about. Yep. It's all of that right there. And the green to the right there. What is that? Downtown Village. That's downtown Village.

And we've had conversations about this section right here in the past. how, you know, with the current tenants and current things there and the way that the city and, you know, going back to what Jim said about the the general plan, you know, that is an entree or entry into the downtown village, we want that to be, you know, nice and pristine and, you know, whatnot. And so the concern is obviously that doing manufacturing on this side right next to the manufacturing zone right behind it includes this side. This is all manufacturing as well. Everything around

it includes this side as well. And this this right here is the biggest hiccup in my opinion. It's this entire side right here. That's the biggest hiccup with the with the with the general plan just as what staff has recommended. But but doing limitations does that I mean well and that manufacturing zone there that's behind this long sky. How long is that going to stay manufacturing? I mean it's historically been that way for I mean I've been here for 20 20 plus years.

That stuff when they show the map that stuff was built 50 years ago. forever. Yeah, practically speaking, but with the with the change in the railroad and and some of those things, I don't know how long that I don't know. It's it's a unique spot right now. What else would you do with it? I mean, would you tear it down and put houses? I mean, well, you got houses right next to it. I mean, instead of manufacturing, go back just to the commercials. Yeah, it currently can. It currently cannot be housing, but the developer could come in and make the request. It's just interesting to see that one little sliver that's just still survived. That's just kind of a hold over. Well, look at all the overlays. I love the overlays.

They're phenomenal. So, what we're deciding today though, right, are we going to allow this use in in this zone? Yeah. And that and that is the struggle. And again, it's a it's also a struggle. Uh, Jacob, correct me. Like there is the potential for sales tax revenue. Yes. Okay. So, with with most with a lot of the other stuff that's in that area, we're not getting much sales tax. Probably not. Yeah, we are. But aren't you talk I mean looking the CG here and here and then up here too. So, more than just that gray area. It's just this right here and that the CG.

There is one is there right up there. Yeah. So, I'll zoom into the other sections. So, the CG here right here. These are just some like regular office buildings. Yeah. With the worst entrance ever in the history of city planning. I don't think I even know how to get there. I mean, you drive by it every day, but I don't know how to get there. I know. This area right here was reszoned to general commercial. couple years ago. And this one Yes. And so this one wants to do flex space there.

And then we have this little portion right here. I think this one might be just like left over. Uh because that doesn't really include anything. Uh but then we have a small section down here on Main Street right here. Uh a little complex right there. And then we have another small complex just right over here off of State Street that is also general. And most of those are just professional offices that don't provide any sales tax. And most of that's all built out, too. Exactly. So, I'm just going to say this, lay it out. I want this to happen for him, property owner.

Right. So, assuming that's the goal, and for me, I'll speak for myself, what other solutions are there? If we don't like the idea potentially of of allowing this, let's lay out the other possible solutions and just kind of pro and con them weigh them against each other. I think there's two. I think there's a conditional use permit like we did like we did with the last Yeah. last one recently. And then I think there's a reason of his property. And I think the reason maybe to Jim's comment is, you know, if that other manufacturing doesn't manufacturing forever. That's that complicates that even more.

So there is other other things that he can do to accomplish this without changing the use of the entire zone.

Yeah, that that's my point is what are our other options? And I think the the conditional use permit with restrictions and and things is a pretty viable option that doesn't affect the entire zone. We're not don't even have to worry about anything that's, you know, all the other little pockets and holes or whatever that still allows him to do what I personally want him to be able to do. You know, the the irony is that this is tucked back at the very back of this property. Yet, we have to be concerned about the stuff that's right up against the road, right? Um, but how many developers are going to be doing that manufacturing right up against the road

in society. Yeah. Honestly, that real estate is too expensive to do that. Yeah. I mean, that tournamental used to have a big shop right there on State Street and they slowly pulled out and then they had a place over on Geneva and they just closed that and turned that over to going into different buildings. So, that market drives use is pulling away from us. Well, and it's interesting that this is this is uh instigated because of federal government regulations and stuff. And if that goes away, right, is this going to be something that will be thrown overseas again? Will this use be required

because the the price will become so much cheaper overseas? So like we're deal we're dealing potentially with something that's a what fouryear thing potential potentially you know hopefully you know it's it's really for him that he's able to make a lot of money off of it and keep manufacturing here. But reality, chair, can am I allow one comment? Yes, please.

Uh I think that in the staff report there's I I want to avoid a conditional use permit. Okay. conditional use permit is they're complicated because unless we come out with the conditions then we don't we don't know what conditions we're going to implement in the future they'll be just kicking the can from them so what I suggest to do if that's a a a viable option is a permitted use with qualifying provisions and I think in your staff report you guys can find some qualifying provisions the applicant is here so it's good that we can you guys can have that discussion If that's a route that you you guys vote or feel that that's where to go. Um I think there's there's there's some qualifying provisions right there. The idea of the reszone um it will be extending the manufacturing zone into into that area. Correct. Um as I was talking to the applicant B it he won't delay his project more than two weeks. So the idea of a reszone yeah for two weeks. Um

does that lot Yeah, just that lot. That's that's the other option. Or I mean you guys have multiple option. I'm just giving you tools for you guys to make decisions or to make but I will recommend we stay away from my conditional use permit. If we lotine say that again. If we can limit it to that lot, I like that idea. That would be ideal. The reason you're saying a reszone to that lot. I'm okay with that, too. I'm okay with reszoning that lot, especially because it borders right there. It's only a two week delay and I will be a different basel.

Is there another are we having a second meeting this year or this month? But you guys have one meeting in January and then the city council meeting the city council meeting right after will be on the 6th and on the 20th. So instead of going on the sixth we have a planning commission on the

Brian would you mind coming to the podium please? Are you okay with the principles? The only problem is that it will be a different application the reszone and the general plan does not support the resone. That's I just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of that one because then you will be facing that that conundrum at that time.

General plan doesn't accommodate this either. So, Yeah.

Well, that that was just, you know, throwing it out there for everything else. But but like what we had talked about like what we're trying to you know accommodate and stuff the two week delay right to make it so that that property can be reszoned, that parcel can be resoneed for the manufacturing. What are your thoughts about that? You can't split a building. No. No.

It would only add usability or different. Yeah. It would broaden expand. Yeah. Expanding us. It would just give him the opportunity to do the same type of thing in his side. Yes. It wouldn't restrict anything. He's already got Daniel's uneasy though. What? Go ahead. If if you guys want the opinion of a staff of the director, I can tell you the best route will be um permitted use with qualifying provisions because then you guys will have to find reasons why you guys want to go against your general plan. I mean, that's a situation that you guys feel like it. That's that's a that's up to you guys. Just trying to make it easier on you guys.

Okay. We're for We're for the idea. I don't think I don't think you have to I don't think you have to sell us on the idea.

Uh can I ask Daniel just one more question? If we do this conditional or provisions, can we continue this until the next meeting so that those provisions can be put in by staff? Yeah. Yeah. You will delete him two two weeks as well. Yeah. Two weeks as well. Yeah. Correct. You will deliver. But then we're not changing the zone going against the general plan. Yes. We're finding a solution for the applicant to do what he needs to do without impacting the entire zone.

Yeah. Making it so I I think the question is how detrimental is that two week delay going to be to you and your client.

But um sorry um I thought we'd be able to pull this together. So, I told the current tenant to vacate and so they have now vacated. Um, so if this doesn't work, honestly, I'd prefer to fail fast or to get approval because then I can go find a different tenant if need be. But I think we're we're looking for a solution to make it happen. It's just delaying the process by two weeks. So, the cost is just to delay whatever that cost is to you for delaying two weeks because the next meeting would be for city council is January 6th. Okay. We don't meet until January 8th, right? And so then city council would meet January 20th.

So it's that delay right there. Yeah. But it's it's either we do it this way or Yeah. it doesn't get done. So Okay, Daniel, the qualifying provisions that that we proposing as a staff maybe. So it's for you guys consideration. uh for right now I think he said they're in because they're in the staff right now will be to have a storefront. That's number one. Okay. And and number two is to limit the square footage of it. So we will propose to to make sure that uh that it has a storefront and that the maximum square footage area used for the manufacturing portion is no bigger than 5,000 square feet. And are you okay with that as well? Yes. Yes.

Oh, and there's a third one. What's the third one? Third one would be to limit the amperage. Um to what? The amperage. Amperage sound. Yeah. 200 power. Yeah. Right now it's running 400 amps of 208. You want to limit it to 200 amps. Is that what you're saying? Two whatever seems reasonable to maintain small CNC machines. um because this will be a use that goes through the whole uh general commercial zone. So, whatever we feel comfortable limiting it to. So, our building is currently set up with 400 amps. Is that

And it has Yeah. three-phase 208 has acted Congress to try to get more power. It's not an easy thing. No, it's not. But when we built that, we decided to put 400 amps in there. You're suggesting to reduce that though. Maybe we can just go a smaller square footage. What if we went to like 3,000 square foot of shop space? Is that enough to do what you want to do? Well, there's only like 3500 available. Be your storefront and 3,000. Well, 500's going to be probably the, you know, you have to have a work area just to ship in and out. And like the machines themselves will probably only take up a couple thousand square feet.

But but we are requesting that you have a storefront. Is that totally great? I think we can make a beautiful storefront. So it says so in the staff report it says right here uh 3,000 square feet of usable space for machining equipment. Is that correct? That'd be great. Okay. And then maximum we'll make sure that we say max. And that's what it says. Yeah. The space is going to be about 3500. But again, there's there's area that you have to like have work tables and stuff bathroom in there too and the storefront. So So if we have if we have the provisional that's listed right here, 3,000. So can I bring this back up to just us? Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Brian.

Let me make sure I understand on the square footage. So the building is 4,775 total square feet. There's about 1,200 square feet of of retail office in the front. That's your bathrooms and the what could be a showroom and then offices up on the top. So that leaves about 35 3600 in the warehouse, but not all of that needs to be for the machining. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going to bring it back up to the commissioners. So, how do we feel about that? Do we do we feel like that that's a good solution? I think so. That clears up a lot. Yeah. I'd say 3500 ft

um Leave the amps, you know, don't don't mess with the amp restriction since they've already got it, but just limit the square footage to the 3500 square feet. Do you want to make a storefront and a storefront and a storefront? Yeah. And with that, that would stop anybody else that is the concerns that I see on my side. So, I'm agree. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's a good point. I'm in agreement. And Commissioner Phillips, um, just in regards to the Amperage, I just wanted to bring that up in consideration for anywhere else in the zone that this use could go because while they have, you know, a small enough amperage where we might feel comfortable with it,

if someone else comes in with like say a new building and gets more amperage or something, I think the size of the restriction Well, if we keep it at 400, I think you're okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I say is if 3,500 square feet allocated or dedicated to the manufacturing use, you're not going to be able to put such big machines in there to do such a big operation in 3500 ft. You're limited by size. Yeah. Yeah. And I I'd put 400 amps in there, too, just Oh, you Okay. I would go ahead.

I don't have a written thing, so I got to hold it far enough away. Um, so where's your proposal? I move the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request of Brian Fruit for the proposed amendment to city code section 10-11F-2-D permitted uses by adding use 3424 metal working machinery and equipment to the list of permitted uses in the general commercial zone and adopting the exhibits conditions and findings of the staff report and as modified by the conditions below. which are that okay the building itself is approximately 4700 square f feet. Um with I'll say 3500 square ft of usable space for machining equipment. Uh two employees would begin at the location uh to increase to four later. proposed use would primary consistent manufacturing. We don't need all that, do we?

No, because this is is this is for the whole zone. So, I think it's the 3500 square ft um storefront storefront and 400 amps um of 208 power are provided to the building. I'll second

just to just to be clear just to be clear for I'm not sure the condition number one is that the maximum area used uh the square footage for the manufacturing part is 3500. Condition number two is that there has to be a store frontage. And condition number three is that the amperage is limited per uh per building or per site. Per building per unit at what was the number you guys came up? 400. Okay. Just to just to just to help her out a little bit.

Thank you, Daniel. And thank you, Christina. Okay. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Phillips and a second by Commissioner Martin. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Going to number three on tonight's agenda. a public hearing to consider the request of Pleasant Grove City to amend section 10-6-2 definitions to revise the definition for building height. Jacob, Madam Chairman, did we want to hear item number three first or did we want to hear item number four first? Is there a preference?

Oh, we moved them. So item number three, just kidding, is a public hearing to consider the request of Pleasant Grove City to amend section 10-15-28 design review to amend the requirements of the design of new buildings including residences.

We're gonna hear one of them. You pick. I've announced both of them. All right. Perfect. Awesome. All right. So, item number just for purpose of the agenda because we didn't change it at the beginning of the meeting, just let's follow the let's just follow the regular one. We're just going to follow the regular one. Yeah. Because, you know, at the beginning of the meeting, we didn't make the switch. So, let's just follow Well, we we read them both anyways. So, item number three is building heights. All right.

Wait, wait, I'm not there yet. All right, let me go back to right here. Okay, perfect. And I'm also going to go ahead and hop on over to our definitions real quick. There you go. All right. So, over the past year, as new houses have been constructed, several concerned neighbors to a few of these developments have reached out to staff regarding the permitted building height of these houses. These citizens are primarily concerned with their protections to density, safety, light, and air, and feel that some of these new houses are too tall and too imposing on their property. In several of these cases, there have been a few developments where the ground level has been raised for utilities and drainage and then a residence has been placed on top of the raised ground. And because of this, the building appears to be much taller than what the neighboring properties have expected to be permitted even though the building height meets code standards. So staff has reached different sorry staff has researched different ways to measure building height in response to these concerns and staff is open to finding a middle ground that gives extra security to existing homeowners while still letting new development build in a way that is fair. However, the propo uh the potential solutions that staff has researched to redefine how the maximum height of a building is measured do not seem to provide any significant difference in building height. We'll discuss all of that. So, let's start off by uh going to how we currently measure the height of a building. So, this is it right here. Building height, the vertical distance measured from the average elevation. Actually, I'm I'm not going to do this one. I'm going to go to here. This is a little bit better. Can you guys see that well enough? Let me know if I need to zoom in or anything like that. But this is this is the first

one. This is how we currently read it. uh the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at each face of the building to the highest point of the roof, provided that those structures set forth in section 1059 of this title shall be excluded from said measurement which by the way those uh exclusions include things such as like chimneys or spires or like architectural details or just nicks and necks effectively. uh the height of a stepped or terrace building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. So in short, the way how we um currently read the code is we'll go to the midpoint of the house which is right about here and then we'll take the measurement up to where the peak of the roof would be. So like we'll kind of draw a little horizontal line out. Um, another way that I tend to do it, which tends to be a little bit easier mathematically, is I'll just go from this corner all the way up to the peak of the roof and then from this corner all the way up to the peak of the roof and then I'll get the average of those two and it comes out to be a certain number in this particular case about 32 feet. So that's how we uh do it for right now. Now this current definition for building height is simple to understand. It's easy for staff to measure and is easy for developers to provide. However, this definition does not always satisfy neighbor concerns about the height of a building feeling too tall. The zoning ordinances have historically permitted homes to be built up to 35 ft tall, which from an outside perspective does not really seem to create any substantial impacts to light, air, and space or the feel of a neighborhood, including situations where a two-story home is adjacent to a rambler. But at the same time, that's from an outside perspective. That's not from the person who actually lives there and has to deal with it every day. For significantly

taller residences, uh, in July 2024, a new provision was approved by the city council that permitted some houses to exceed 35 ft as long as the increased or as long as increased setbacks have been provided. In this way, new houses on larger properties could have more flexibility in their design, but in a manner where adjacent property owners do not feel as if their property is being overshadowed. So, to provide extra security to existing residents, staff proposes the following potential options to redefine building height. Uh the overall goal of the proposed text amendment, if approved, is to find the best solution to ensure that the definition for building height is simple to understand, easy for staff to measure, is easy for developers to provide, and satisfy neighbor concerns about the height of a building. So, let's get into these options, and we can kind of discuss things from there. option number one, which is going to be the average between the original grade and the finished grade. So, starting off with the proposed text, the vertical distance measured from the average elevation between the natural grade and the proposed finished grade along each face of the building to a horizontal line extending from the highest point of the roof. provided that those structures set forth in section 10159 of this title shall be excluded from said measurement and the height of a stepped terrace building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. Now option one requires and that's that's the one that that we think would be the most appropriate to apply the option number one the measure from the average to take into consideration the original and the finished grade.

That's the green correct. That would be the green. That would be the green. Yeah.

Yeah. So actually, you know, I'll go ahead and take this break really quick to explain this picture a little bit. So this red line is the natural grade. Um, so this was done uh when I went into the subdivision plans for this particular property. I got the grading that said, "Hey, this is what was there originally." And then I went into the building permit itself and got the finished grading plans. And that the finished grade is this blue line right here. So, uh, between the blue and the red, I have this green. And this green is labeled as the average between the finished and the original grade. Except that should say natural because we've got a definition for natural grade. We don't have a definition for original grade. So, I'll have to change that. But um as we look at this though, blue is how we normally measure it from. So we just go from one point to the other and go up to like the peak effectively. Um on the red we would do the same. Um and then the green is the halfway point effectively. If we go from the green all the way up to where 35 feet would be, it's only about a foot and a half difference between it and where we would currently measure the maximum height at 35 ft from the finished uh grade if that makes sense. Um so, uh kind of get back into this and maybe more of this will kind of make sense. So, option one requires developers to provide information about the natural grade of the property. So the red line um which may not always be readily available. Uh many improvements and grading work is performed shortly after a subdivision plat is recorded to ensure that the lots being sold are buildable. Uh sometimes it may be some time or a different developer will come

along without the information about the natural grade of the property. Uh and furthermore, this option is a little bit more difficult for staff to measure, but it does provide a small difference in what the maximum height of the building would be. And so in this sample here on the screen, uh, with a change of elevation of about three feet, uh, between the natural grade and the finished grade right down here, um, uh, right here at the midpoint of the building, it saves us about a foot and a half of difference uh, in terms of the maximum height the building can have. Whereas the perceived height of the building from the neighbor over here to the left is still going to be about 33 feet. Here is another example. Um, so at a difference in grade of about 7 and 1/2 ft from the natural grade to the finished grade up here, um, at the midpoint of the building, this house only saves approximately of 2 and 1/2 ft of maximum height uh, between the blue and the green. Again, the neighbor to the left in this case would have would have a perceived height of the building at about 36 ft, which would extend beyond the maximum building height requirement that we have in residential zones. Um, but you can see that between these two examples, the ground had to be built up significantly. Um, on this example, the lowest elevation of the natural grade is about 47 feet and the highest elevation of the finished grade is 59 ft. So, when a neighbor like say puts up a fence on this back property line right here, uh if that if that fence is six feet tall, then there's still two or three feet of ground that's visible over that fence. Um and then a house is put on top of that. And so the neighbor might feel that the house was deliberately built in a way that blocks their view of the mountain even though the house meets all of the

zoning requirements and engineering requirements. However, with this first option, instead of the maximum building height being all the way up to here, this blue line, um, it is reduced somewhat down to this green line. Um, so it is reduced, but perhaps not as much as a neighbor might think. Option number two, average height from a set distance from the building. Now, this is taken from the international zoning code. So for the proposed text, the vertical distance measured from the lowest average elevation of the finished lot grade within the area between the building and a line 10 ft from the building at each face of the building to a horizontal line extending from the highest point of the roof. Uh provided this structure set forth and section 1059 yada yada yada. Um so to note here um the set distance from the building could be amended. So right here, this uh blue line once again 35 ft from where we would normally measure the average from puts uh it up to about right here. And if we go out from the house 10 ft on both sides and then draw the line between those and then if we go up to the maximum height it could go, uh there's a little bit of a difference. That's about a foot and three inches or something like that. Foot and a quarter. So, it's not very much. Um, but with this one, um, besides the current version of the building height definition, this option is the easiest for staff to measure and easy enough for developers to provide as most building permits include some information about the finished grade slightly away from the foundation of the home. However, this option, like I said, results in the smallest difference in the maximum building height from the original definition. Then moving on to option number three

which is probably the weakest of the proposed text. Uh so this one is the vertical distance measured from the lowest natural surface uh natural grade surface surface at any point on the perimeter of the building to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deckline of a maned roof or to a level midway between the level of the eaves to the highest point of gamrel ri roofs. uh provided that those structures set forth in 1059 of this title shall be excluded from said measurement. Uh for the purposes of measuring height, the level of the eaves means the highest level where the plane of the roof intersects the plane outside of the wall on any side containing an eve. So basically it means going up halfway up the roof instead of to the peak of the roof. Because option three measures to the middle of the roof, it creates a situation where buildings could potentially be even taller than what is currently permitted. Um, if this section is changed to measure to the peak of the roof, then it would be no different than measuring to the natural grade line, which would not be as flexible for developers to meet. Uh so for example this one if we go from the lowest point of the natural grade right here and if we go up to the midline this is only 30 feet and a half or something like that. If we were to go up to 35 ft then the halfway point of the roof would be all the way up to here where the peak of the roof is. So technically it makes it even easier for developers to have a taller house. And I think that's kind of the opposite. Keep in mind, commissioners, that we're giving you options what we studied because we studied multiple ones. Some of them are really complicated to measure. It's going to take us and it's going to be difficult and it's there's going to be uh easy deviations from it. The number one is the one that we we think is the the most appropriate with it.

But we're just showing you options in case you guys feel like the discussion needs to be continue or the discussion needs to be go deeper into one of these options. But option number one is the one that we're proposing to move on on. Okay. But we're explaining what we did, the work that we did, and the differences on on those ways to measure.

And actually, with that being said, staff wants to open this proposed code text amendment up for discussion. So, uh, if there's any feedback um on if we should change any way how we measure the building height, uh, and if so, what it should be changed to, uh, however, we can open it up for discussion. I would say from my professional experience, number one is is the best option to go with. Number one. Okay.

And that's I've had to deal with that on commercial buildings before. Proposed grade, original grade, settling in between and uh overall heights of the building and that's generally commercial that's what's accepted. And also keep in mind that another option technically speaking is just leaving it as it currently is as well. And that's not a bad option either.

Um and still we're still part of the presentation. Um let me see. Yeah, we're looking for something that get sorry a little bit of background that you didn't mention is until three years ago. Three years ago. Okay. The Tallest you could do in Pleasant Grove was two and a half stories or 35 feet whichever was less whichever was more restrictive. Okay. So you could have built, for example, uh a home that was 35 ft, but if it was three stories, it wouldn't be approved because it's only two and a half stories maximum, right? Or you could have do a two and a half stories, but it was 40 ft also wouldn't be approved because it, you know, it will be cap at 35. It it was complicated to to also to make sure that we could do it quickly and and and and to find and to make that decision. So just three years ago, in order to make it easier for to to to build homes, we to interpret the code regarding the height, we eliminated the two and a half stories. So the code was more restrictive before. It was more restrictive before. We staff, we removed that restriction to make it 35 to make it easier. But it was more restrictive. Just just just keep in mind because I don't want anybody to say like, well, you're making it super restrictive. We already made it easier. Now, we're seeing some problems we because we're gonna have a lot of infield development as we're having right now. And we we're looking for the existing residents also while allowing for for um uh to still build a pretty big home. I mean, a two-story home is definitely below 35 ft. In all the examples that you saw right there, except on the one that measures from natural grade, which we're not proposing to to to approve, all the homes meet the requirement, but it stops from getting the problem a little bigger. Does that make sense? Because,

for example, just in that home that you guys are seeing right there, the the actual the actual height was um let me see, the actual height for that home is the Well, it says the average is 319.

Correct. 319. That's the average 319. Okay. So, that home was approved. That that Let's take a look at that one. That home was approved and the heightened measure from the staff was 319. That's measured from finish grade. Okay. If we do this code text amendment, then we'll cap it at the green line. Okay. So the home is still still meets the requirement even though if you guys take a look at right there there's a great difference of how many feet 11 feet I can see from Oh yeah there yeah it's 47 to 58.

Yeah of 11 ft difference. Okay so even even with a with a a feeling of 11 feet difference this code is still allows for that home to be built in but it stops it from being any bigger and that's what we're trying to propose here. Okay. So, we're not saying, "Hey, we're gonna we what is built is not okay." We're saying it's still okay. You still feel you guys can see that green line. That's actually a home built in Pleasant Grove City recently in a subdivision with a lot of filling, 11 ft of filling will still meet the code, but it will stop from building any bigger than that. And that's a massive home, by the way, because on one side, just on one side,

uh, it's 36 feet. Okay. Yeah. That right there. 362. Yeah. And so according to the green line, it could go up to what 38 39 on the back side on that side because we still measure from the average. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Most definitely. With with the old code, would that be considered a threetory? Because a walk out basement with the with the older code. Yes. But that code doesn't exist anymore. We eliminated it. Just just making sure I Yeah. Yeah. Well, I want to know the definition of half a story. Yeah. That's why we eliminated it because it was complicated to to come up with something like that. For example, from the from the old code basement, it's not a full stand up

from the old code.

The one that does not exist anymore, that home wouldn't be permitted. Wouldn't be permitted. Okay. So, I I I have some developers and you're being too restrictive. Not at all. We actually open it up for for for them to be able to build because that would be considered a three-story home right there. Okay. So, that one wouldn't be permitted. We eliminated that part just to to to measure the the straight distance from average to the peak. We also don't want to measure to middle of the plate. We don't want to measure anything like that to the peak is the easiest way and the most common way to measure. Okay, that's that's I think we finished our presentation. Uh chair, so you want to continue with the process, we we're ready for it unless you guys have questions for us. Yeah, I think I I think I'll um because it's a public hearing, I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Not seeing any. I will close it to the public.

Oh, you missed your chance. I've just closed it. Time's up. Time's up. If you could just state your name for the record.

Yes, ma'am. My name is Jim Pratt. I'm an attorney with Curtain McConi, 2600 West, Executive Parkway, Sweet 400 in Lehi. I'm here representing Castlewood Homes and I believe um their Sierra Height project is perhaps the catalyst for this whole discussion. And so we um we have some concerns although the staff is is offered some encouraging information so that uh it may be that the adoption of this change will not be as detrimental to us as we um we assumed when we first read what was being proposed. And so the in the final analysis, we're going to ask if you'll permit it that we meet with your staff, have them show us how this ordinance is to be applied, and we can determine what impact it will have on us. But I'll give you some background. Well, I'll say this. Um we we see um the reason behind adopting this change prospectively. We think that adopting it to apply retroactively is not fair. And I'll tell you why that is. Um when when my client first met with the city staff for the pre-development meetings, they were told that there were two possible alignments for uh the um storm sewer and for the um I'm sorry the other on drainage, sorry. Um both of which utilities are are um are gravity um fed. And we were told one of them would be through Manila Park,

which is south and downhill from our project, and would not have required a lot of fill. We were also told the other one was in, I believe, 1,800 north, and that's north of the property uphill, and would require a lot of fill. Um and in the course of that conversation, staff let us know that they would not support the the southern alignment of those utilities. And so um taking that clue from staff, we designed this project so that those utilities um extended northward and in the course of developing it would require a great deal of fill. And um but you should know that that was done. Obviously that was not our preference. It was harder and it was more expensive. But we were deferring to the city. And so we sought our permits including grading plans and they were approved and we um when we received the permits, we developed this project in accordance with permits that the city approved. So that that project now as it stands has been done in accordance with the city's recommendations and in accordance with permits that the city issued. Now our concern is that because of the extensive fill we were compelled to bring this the application of this ordinance change would it could have one of two effects. It could require us to build um ramblers rather than two-story homes on our premium lots. And that's disruptive of

our proforma of of what we projected to make. And it subjects us to to risk that what we hope we could develop as a nice profitable community, both nice for the community and profitable for the developer, may no longer be possible. Um, at the same time, we um, especially with this option three that we looked at tonight, we have concerns we won't be able to do anything on two of the lots. Now, staff seems to think, and this is encouraging, that that's not the case, that perhaps we're misapplying what is intended by this ordinance, and that's possible. And and that would be the best for all of us. Um, and so we request that we have the opportunity to speak with staff and understand whether retroactive application of this ordinance would still allow us to pull building permits or twotory homes on our remaining lots. um if if we're compelled to build ramblers, uh the nature of the whole subdivision changes and and and I suspect you may be getting complaints about us from those who are already living in that subdivision because of it. Um we are and so what we're we're here to make two points that the retroactive application of this is not fair and we we suggest that you make it prospective only. Um that will accomplish what staff has said is the purpose which is to give the residents and the developer the opportunity to know what they have to do in the case of the developer what they have to do in the case of the residents

what they can expect. And that's our first suggestion. Um, and then our second request is that we be we be allowed to meet with staff to um to quantify the impacts of this project of this ordinance on our project. And um and if um in the worst case it is as detrimental as we have initially concluded um then we would need to talk some more. At that point, we would like this to be applied applied only prospectively and not retroactively. Now, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. And my my daughter um I could never tell her no. Um is also here to answer some of the more technical details. She is she's the developer and um we've observed how open-minded you are and how um how cooperative you are. And so we offer to give you any information that might help you to consider what what what I've said tonight.

Thank you, Jim. I can answer once you close the the the public comments. All right. Uh any other public that want to come up? Seeing none, I will close it to the public hearing and I will bring it back up to the commissioners for discussion or a motion. First though, Daniel, you would like me to answer to some of the concerns?

Sure. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I listen carefully. There are a couple terms that are used incorrectly. We're not the the term retroactive doesn't nothing is being retroactive. Imagine every single code text amendment says that it will be retroactive. That's not the case. Okay. The the legal term when we when we talk about land use is a vested a vested project. Okay. When a project is vested is when you have a have submitted an application and have gotten approval or sorry you have submitted an application make the payment for the application that means your project is vested. Okay. No city code ordinance is retroactive. Meaning that we're not apply any city code and then go back to previous projects and say, "Hey, this home is already you already submitted a building permit. We already you already paid for it, then we're going to apply this law to it." That's that's not the case. The the legal term is at the time a project is vested, the law that gets applied is at the time that a paid application is being formally submitted. Okay? So just just to be be clear on that

and that's for the entire project. It's not just for one house, right? I mean it depends on how this applies to in this case for example we're nobody can grab a a a new ordinance in this case an ordinance is not for a subdivision is not for grading. It's not is how we going to measure the height of a home. It is

if a if a submitted application we already have for a building permit has already been submitted and paid for. Okay. And that's the case for every single application. Then it means has bested rights. We cannot just go and change it because we changed the code. Does that make sense? Now once the code is is adopted, then we apply from there on to every single uh uh um uh uh submitt. Daniel, I think the difference in perspective though from this gentleman is is he's looking at it from when they develop the the subdivision, the horizontal development of it, not on an individual home basis. So, as a developer going through a project, there's quite a bit of investment that goes into a project um the development of it. And you're correct, an individual home maybe lot 12 or 22 hasn't been submitted. So, so it's not invested for that home. But there sure is a whole lot of water under the bridge um before that individual home, you know, the 10th or the 12th or whatever in that development that that it's totally affecting from a retroactive standpoint.

Well, it's going to affect the entire city for sure. The entire city, any home from now on, it will be affect once it's been approved. Correct. Well, once it's been approved, if it's approved, whatever's approved, whatever's approved, whatever whatever code is adopted is is affects from now on, but their project is halfway through and so it's affecting Yeah, but no project is approved. No project gets approved with the with the height of a home. Sure. Totally totally agree and I get it, but I think there's a disparagement between

Sure. I just I need to make sure that we understand the the legal the legal terms from what we what we submitted right here regards what a vested project is versus a retroactive application of of of a city code. So and I probably understand the differences but I just need to make sure that we understand what the land use regulation or rule is for this. Okay. Um so no code is is that that we that we come for and it's not targeted for a specific development. Okay. Especially in this case does it affect Yeah, it affects would it affect it? Probably. would affect everybody else for sure. Everybody else. So it's not just we we didn't do this this law just thinking of one specific subdivision thinking how it is. Okay. Actually the first problem that we had regarding the height I don't I think you guys had it right here uh the coming it has nothing to do with this with this with this subdivision. Okay. Um just to be clear on that. And uh yeah they any any person can meet with staff at any time doesn't mean that a staff will just because they meet with us we're going to change what we have. This is a proposal that we're doing based again we have the right to submit something to propose something is going through the legal process. The planning commission does it's a legislative process and it's following every single one of the steps. We're presenting a notice incorrectly and it's going through the process. They're welcome to meet any time with staff but doesn't mean that we'll do any any change. So we propose that we continue with the process as normal. The planning commission will do a recommendation only and the final decision is done by the city council. Okay. Probably this one I'll bring it to the city council. The first or I'm thinking about the second the second meeting in January. Okay. The second meeting in January. But of course the doors are wide open. I actually I received an email from the applicant. and I was just out of the office cuz I was sick. Came back today and we'll we'll make sure we meet with everybody who has concerns regarding this one um

regarding this this this code text amendment and um yeah and just I want to reassure the planning commission that this is following the legal process uh of how a legislative decision is made. Thank you.

One thing that I like about the applicant's suggestion is to meet with the city. Um I'm not sure that it makes sense for us to make a decision subject to them meeting with the city. No. But I think it makes sense to perhaps postpone a decision subject to them making it having that meeting to make sure that their points are clarified um before a final decision is made. That's maybe just my thought. Well, and we had considered continuing this item anyway, so I think that's what we do. Yeah. So, um,

but just to be clear, I want to make sure that we we want to continue because I want to receive direction from from from the planning commission of the options that we presented which one is the best one that you guys consider the best one and then we'll focus on that one. That's the reason for the continuation. I heavily on number one, Jim's expertise, which you said was number one, but I think your experience and your knowledge in building and I think makes a lot of sense. Daniel, would you like us to go down the line of which option? That'll be good. Yeah, if you guys that'll be good. You guys if you guys want us to present them again, show the differences, we'll do it. you guys understood it. You just I think

pretty much what I'm trying to receive is uh what staff is searching for is for direction on the from the planning commission on what of the options you guys consider the most uh agreeable. Can can you just go to number two really quick? Number one makes sense and I like Jim's you know having Jim's expertise on that it's good as well as the ease. Number two is the same, but instead of just measuring from the where the footings of of the exterior footings of the house is, exterior walls, we'll draw a line 10 feet on each side. Okay. That was number two. Yeah. And that was Anyway. Yeah. Yeah. This is the way that the international zoning code does it.

And then three three is going from the lowest original natural or original. Okay. That's right. So looking looking at one, two, and three and four is leaving it the same. And four is leaving it the same. Okay. Okay. Four leaving it the same. So, you know, looking at at each one of these, I mean, this this I know what house this is. I've driven past it. I I I recognize it. And yeah, it is, you know, it is significant, especially from, you know, neighbors perspective. Um but um this seems to be my opinion you know the easiest and it does take into consideration you know it gives a lot of leniency in in my opinion.

So can we do that I yeah I would say that's I'd actually recommend we go old school style with heads up seven up just to make sure that nobody is like influenced or swayed by the other remind me how that works. But but for the record, Commissioner Christina gets to see whose thumbs are up. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Nelson, which option would you recommend? Option A. One. Option one. Option one. Commissioner Martino, option one. Uh, Commissioner Reading here wants option one. Commissioner Patton, option one. Commissioner Butler, one.

Commissioner Phillips, unanimous. So, it's a unanimous for option one. Okay. But I still think heads up seven up would have been way more fun. It would have been way more fun, but hard for the minutes. And then I would entertain a a motion to continue. I uh what's our next date? January 8th. Can I get an official motion? Well, I'm Before we do that, I I want to move I want to prove it

is where I am. So, if someone else wants to not discuss that first. Yeah. The only concern I have with it is I I think there's the risk of of what they were describing of maybe the interpretation of it and how it would affect them before they're like fully on board. I I think we're comfortable probably saying, "Hey, that's good, but I'd like to have their their feedback or their opportunity to meet with the the city staff to discuss that." That's I agree. That's the only reason I would say continue versus approving it because I I agree. I think we're all kind of on board with especially with the unanimous vote. But I think there's value in letting them

that's and that's not a bad idea. I I am curious. So, really quick, I am curious staff if it's okay if I ask them a quick question. So in general just looking at the city and all the the development that's available and stuff how this is this particular project that you know with this developer is unique will this be an issue again with many projects do you see for sure for sure I mean um when we do a public hearing okay we don't uh specifically we we don't we don't target specific people again because if I have sent these notices to the people that have complained you will have right here 100 people telling you approve this right now okay so um it's is for everybody to see for everybody to see and uh it will we what we're trying to stop is to make a problem bigger because if you look at that right there just look at that home I mean that home is is it's okay it's permitted it's threetory home. If you leave behind that home, you'll be looking at three stories from there, but still miss the code. Okay. But we're trying to avoid is eventually because we have 35 ft because we eliminated two and a half. Okay. If we again if we go that would be going retroactive say no that's not permitted because Okay. But it's a massive home still. It still is permitted.

Yeah.

Okay. Still is permitted. However, the residents of Plen Grove City, many of them that that are not here today, but you guys have heard them in previous meetings, okay, they want us to do something regarding the elevations of homes and they will claim they've been like existing residents. What's being done for them? This is a a this is the trial of a staff trying to say like, okay, I understand there's original grade, I understand there's finished grade, let's find something in the middle. Let's let's find an average in the middle. Okay, that's what we're trying to do. Will that affect some homes? For sure. I I'm I'm assuming. Yeah. I mean, so far it hasn't happened yet. Okay. So far, it hasn't happened that we have a home that is bigger than that because right now our code will allow to build to that blue line. Okay. Nobody has done that yet, but it could happen tomorrow. It could happen tomorrow. We're trying to say, hey, staff provided something. We're showing what we think it should be. This is an effort to to listen to the existing residents of Pleasant Grove. And at the same time in the way when we run our our when we run our um our numbers and when we run our examples of existing homes, we realize that it does of course it's more restrictive. You can see that blue line and the green line, but it still meets the ones that the permits that we have received. We just trying to avoid a bigger problem.

I think to your question too, um did I answer the question? Yeah. Yes, sir. Well, and I think even to the applicant's point before is any future project kind of what you're asking about, we are the applicant. Well, no. Well, okay. The the public that commented um any future project will be doing their development based on whatever is passed here. So, will there be concerns? Potentially, sure. But any future developer will be penciling out the viability of a project based on whatever we approve here. And so they they'll either they just won't be caught in the middle of a project like this individual commenter

might be. So I think that'll help solve the potential problems. They'll be able to see it from from before the the process starts. And and if you guys take a look at that image, we're talking about 11 foot difference. If I stand up, I'm six feet. So double me the size. That's extra filling and the the what we're restricting or going lower is two and a half feet. Okay. But it's still an attempt to listen to the residents of Plent City where we we've got which I'm pretty sure you guys have listened to some of them in previous meetings as well. Thank you Daniel. Yeah.

Okay. I move the planning commission continue the Jory Walker request.

Yeah. Did they continue uh at the request of Pleasant Grove City for a code text amendment to Pleasant Grove City to city code section 10-6-2 definitions to revise the definition of building height until our January 8th meeting based on the findings that according to the commissioners option number one provided by the staff is the what we will move forward that it can be defined and written to that extent. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Martino and a second by Commissioner Butler. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Do you want me to re restate this one? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Uh the next agenda item is a public hearing to consider the request of Pleasant Grove City to amend section 10-15-828 design review to amend the requirements of the design of new buildings including residences. Jacob, thank you. Thank you.

Review. Okay. Actually, I want to bring this up as well. Sure. How about come down here? There we go. Okay. All righty. So the last item that we have today is also going to be more of a discussion piece and then we will take your comment and make any changes to the proposed text if necessary and we'll bring it back for further discussion. So the intent of section 101528 is to protect and preserve the character of neighborhoods throughout Pleasant Grove City which is pretty important I feel like. But let's go into the purpose. Uh so the purpose of this section is as follows. The city council and the planning commission which advises the council on zoning matters have determined that the various aspects of architectural design have significant impact on the character and value of city neighborhoods and business districts and that preserving and enhancing this character requires the existence of a certain harmony and compatibility in these aspects from one building or dwelling to the next and throughout the particular neighborhood or district. They've also determined that preserving and enhancing the visual character of certain entryways into the city and areas of unique historical or architectural significance furthers the economic and cultural well-being of the community. Additionally, the city finds that these same benefits should be extended to the entire city. The design standards outlined below address general design relationships and site planning principles. They are standards that could apply to any area of the city. So while staff understands the importance of maintaining protections to the design of existing neighborhoods,

staff also finds that the zoning ordinances found within this section are sometimes unnecessary, subjective, and difficult to enforce. So a common section of this code, let me scroll down just a little bit. Uh that has created a little bit of friction in the past is section 101528B1 right here. uh which is to preserve the design character of the existing immediate area to protect the visual pattern of the community to protect the value of the surrounding properties and to promote harmony in the visual relationships and transitions between new and older buildings. New buildings including residences should be made sympathetic to scale, form, size, and proportion of existing buildings. This can be done by repeating building lines and surface treatment and requiring some uniformity of detail, scale, proportion, textures, materials, color, and building form. Now, the primary issue with this section of code is that it was intended to allow for some flexibility for staff to review building permits for residences and ensure compatibility within their respective neighborhoods. However, this section of code has been used by some concerned citizens when a new building is built on an adjacent property. that is for example uh taller than what they originally expected. And then when staff insists that the new building meets the maximum height requirements per the single family and rural residential zone sections, the concerned individual sometimes uses this section of code to emphasize their concern. It's not staff's intent to undermine the public's concern as they are the ones who ultimately have to live with the finished product. And staff echoes the need for neighborhoods to maintain the character that they have. In fact, it is that neighborhood character that makes it pleasant to live in any particular area. But instead of keeping this section of code separate from the zoning requirements in other zones, staff's

recommendation is to remove section 10528 entirely. Instead of having a separate section that is difficult to interpret and harder to enforce, staff feels that it would be better to take specific points from this section that we like define them better and then include them in the zoning ordinances where they could be best utilized. So for example, instead of referring to this section uh to ensure that new buildings are made sympathetic to scale, form, size, and proportion of existing buildings, we already have a requirement for all new buildings to meet certain lot coverage and building height requirements. So as long as those defined requirements are met, there should be no need to add further restriction to a building scale or size. By defining sections of this code better and then reinstating them in other sections where they could be easier and more relevant to find, zoning ordinances would be able to protect the city better because we have something definitive instead of something subjective. So, let's go through these sections of code and I'll provide some comments along the way. You guys can kind of follow along in your staff report staff reports if you'd like because I'm just going to go through the staff reports uh on page four and on. So this first portion right now um starting with construction activity. Um so the planning commission will review different kinds of construction activity that need design approval and each kind will need a slightly different application of the guidelines for the construction of new buildings including residences and parts of buildings. The focus is on the compatibility of new construction with the existing character which is like style, size etc of the immediate area. For reconstruction, remodeling, addition and repair of existing structures. This rehabilitation will be done in line with the original character of the structure. For relocation of buildings, those buildings moved to sites must be compatible with

the surrounding buildings for the demolition or removal of all parts. Sorry, yeah, of all or parts of existing buildings. Compatible replacement structures must be sought for sign permits. The sign is to be designated or designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it relates and is compatible with the overall character of the area. So staff's note on this whole section right here. Um staff does not have any real immediate concerns with this section except perhaps that you know the planning commission approval may not necessary. Uh even then if the proposed building meets code then there may not be any issue with simply just removing this section entirely. Um next up for harmony of design uh we talked about this one already to preserve the design character of the existing immediate area to protect the visual pattern of the community to protect the value surrounding properties and to promote harmony in the visual relationships and transitions between new and older buildings. New buildings including residences should be made sympathetic to scale, form, size and proportion of existing buildings. This can be done by repeating building lines and surface treatment and be requ and by requiring some uniformity of detail, scale, proportion, textures, materials, color, and building form. So staff's note on this one is the issue with this section is that it's not well enough defined. The intent was to allow for some flexibility for staff to make a determination when reviewing building permits. However, it's turned into more of a hindrance. So, for example, we would have someone who would say, "Oh, this house looks really ugly, so I'm going to complain." Um, and that's more of like one of those subjective complaints. Uh, rather than using it as a tool to be used to protect neighborhood pro neighboring properties. Uh, so for an example of that one is like this house is clearly built in a way that is disruptive to the character of the neighborhood and here's the proof for that. uh that uh shows that it takes

away from the neighbors protections of light or air or lowers the value of surrounding properties which you know that would be a little bit more definitive than you know anything like that. So, Jacob. Yes. And the biggest one, the biggest concern is that's we propose to eliminate that one because then

people come to us, residents come to us say, "Hey, I built a Rambler, so now my next neighbor needs to build a Rambler because it needs to match me." It doesn't matter what the code says. I mean, it's in contradictory say 35 ft is the the maximum and say, "Well, no, right here it says that it needs to meet my what I already exist." And that that puts us into some hot water right there. So that's what we propose to completely just completely eliminate that one. If some design standards are needed for residential which is complicated and difficult to I mean we already have some of those then we'll come up with some other ones but to to have that is just it's just a for whoever doesn't like the neighbors being built to come say this doesn't meet the requirement. However, even right now, we say, "Hey, the maximum height is 35 ft." And someone could say, "Well, I have a Rambler. I want a Rumbler because it needs to match what already exists. It's been a Rambler since the 80s, so now everything needs to be a Rumbler." And and that puts us in a in a tough situation right there. So, and I mean honestly, if staff were to implement this section of code, uh, when all other requirements from the rural residential or R1 zones have been met, uh, such as the maximum height, it would open a path to further conflict either by the developer or by the neighbor. Um, so instead of having a section with the flexible interpretation for limiting the scale, form, size, and proportion of new buildings, these requirements should simply just be included in the respective zone effectively. So, uh, moving on to two. The use of unusual shapes, color, and other characteristics that cause new buildings to call excessive attention to themselves and create a jarring disharmony shall be avoided or reserved for structures of broad public significance. So, this section has not really been an issue in the past, but requirements such as color are not always possible to enforce. People don't necessarily need a building permit to color their house. Um staff interprets jarring disharmony as something more extreme such as a

traditional single family home next to someone who uses a school building uh or like an 85 foot tall castle you know for a home or another example is like a double wide trailer in the middle of like a gated community of like $10 million homes or something. You know, staff believes that most people would want to have a traditional home to live in rather than a school building and would rather simply just trust people who want to build a home that is similar in character to other existing homes and to create a friendly atmosphere with their neighbors. If there's a portion of this section that is important to preserve, one option could be to explore form-based codes uh to further to provide further definition in residential zones. So, for example, you know, if it looks like a house, then it's a house. If it looks like a school, then it's a school. Kind of an idea, but ultimately I don't even think that this this section is really all that necessary. Uh 3, four, five, and six. The heightened bulk of new buildings shall be related to the prevailing scale of development to avoid overwhelming or dominating existing development. Building additions should be designed to reflect existing buildings in scale, materials, and color. Facade renovation should include as few different materials as possible. The architectural style of new or redeveloped structures shall be compatible with the predominant architectural themes of the district. Contemporary design for new buildings in old neighborhoods and additions to existing buildings or landscaping should not be discouraged if such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the neighborhood, building or its environment. and adjacent buildings of different architectural styles shall be made compatible by such means as materials, rhythm, color, repetition of certain plant varieties, screens, sight breaks, etc. So staff does not feel that these sections really need to be enforced considering the housing shortage. If someone has the money to build a home, they should be able to build a home in the style that they choose. Little to no complaints are anticipated from the style of the home.

I mean like we can get ramblers, we can get twotory houses, we can get farmhouse style or modern or traditional or something like that. Um, as long as there's not like a jarring disharmony. Uh, now if someone is able to purchase additional land and wants to build a garage or an addition to their home, as long as the proposed use is permitted and the lot coverage, setback and building height requirements are met, then staff has no issue with this section being removed. However, if this section is found to be pertinent, a new provision for perhaps like floor area ratio may be implemented to dictate how much square footage may be used on a property, including height. Color is still difficult to enforce without making the zoning requirements too burdensome. Um, so anyways, there's that one. And I'll I'll probably talk about jarring disharmony here in just a little bit, too. I think I've got a section for that. Um, number seven, the construction of additions to existing buildings should generally be should be generally discouraged in yards adjoining public streets and should instead be confined to side and rear yards which are generally out of public view. This section if it's important to keep uh we can put this in uh you know respective residential zoning codes. I don't know how important this is. Um, I think sometimes it gets a little bit burdensome if someone has a house in, you know, the far corner on like say a corner lot or something like that. You know, it would limit them and their ability to have any additions or accessory buildings or anything like that. Um, I don't know. It's something that we can probably discuss a little bit more if we feel like it's important or not. Uh number eight, to preserve the continuity prevailing along each block face, the orientation of the building's principal facade shall complement that of the majority of buildings in the same block uh either parallel or perpendicular to

the street. Staff finds that that this section could be better defined in uh section 1062 definitions for front yard. Um number nine, the open expanse of front lawns and quantities of planting within them uh of new or bee developed structures shall be comparable to that of existing structures. So considering water shortages, staff finds that this section should not be necessary and should allow property owners to maintain their landscaping as zeroscaping if so desired. The minimum setback requirements would should still provide for similar amounts of landscaped area and then the residential zones also provide for some minimum landscaping requirements at the time of construction as well. So um projects shall be designed in context with their surroundings. This means that enough visual linkages between existing buildings and the proposed project shall be provided so as to create a cohesive overall effect. In addition to those noted above, visual linkages shall include window proportions, entryway placements, decorative elements, style, materials, and silhouettes. Um, so this section gives flexibility for staff to compare proposed buildings to the surrounding environment for compatibility. However, it's written in a way that encourages a lot of uniformity between houses. Again, as long as there is no jarring disharmony between buildings, staff does not find this section necessary. Uh 11213. Access control. Doors, shrubs, fences, gates, and other physical design elements should be used to discourage access to an area by all but its intended users. Surveillance should be encouraged by placing windows in locations that allow intended users to see or be seen while ensuring that intruders will be observed as well. Surveillance is enhanced by providing adequate lighting and landscaping that allow for unobstructed views. Territoriality should be augmented by the use of sidewalks, landscaping, porches, and other elements that establish the boundaries between public, semi-private, and private areas. So, regarding these sections, landscaping and lighting can be implemented in a way

that encourages surveillance of the neighborhood. Uh, and in fact, this particular thing is called crime prevention through environmental design. Uh however, enforcing these kinds of designs is difficult because we don't require landscaping plans for residential areas. So yeah. Um number 14, project should be designed with human scale foremost. This section does not really seem to add much value to the zoning ordinances. I think most people want to design for human scale. So um and then last one to promote quality design, stabilize and improve property values and create pleasing visual appearance. All buildings with metal exterior covering may be permitted by conditional use permit in commercial and industrial zones. Planning commission shall base its evaluation on the architectural treatment and appearance of the building facade when visible from any public street. Uh so considering the advancements to metal sighting as an exterior building material, staff finds that a conditional use permit for metalclad buildings should not be necessary, especially in manufacturing zones. And even in the Grove zone, we already have requirements when it comes to uh metal buildings effectively like they can only be an accent material effectively. So um just things to consider there. But that's it for me. Daniel, if you've got anything?

Yeah. So let me resume all of this and say that condense this into say that this this code the existing code is redundant. It goes against existing code that we have already and it's easy to go to m interpretation. The only thing that we say from there and we're working on it commissioner butler is I'm working on a new ordinance that can define what scape is and good elements of sys escape. Okay. But other than that, the rest of the ordinance that Jacob read is it's again redundant, impossible to apply because again, for example, we don't require a landscape a landscape plan for a single family dwelling and it's just counterproductive. No, counterproductive. No, usually it goes against the code that already exist. So, we pro we propose to eliminate all that. But we also working at Gisher Bowler and this is something that I have very close to my heart right now uh on a new ordinance regarding uh how we're going to what sir escape really means and good elements of s escape. Okay, that's what we're proposing. It all sound really good to me. Yeah. No.

Um, but this is a public hearing, so I'm just going to hurry and open it up to the public. And not seeing any, I'm going to close it to the public and I'm going to bring it up to the commissioners for discussion or a motion. Do we live in Daybreak? No.

Yeah, it is. Yeah. Wow. So, just for clarification from staff, um just ideally you want us to look this over, look at the staff notes and stuff like that and just make comments and and come back and say we agree, consol, you know, consolidate it, make it so it's not redundant because there's a lot of stuff that's redundant.

No. Yeah. Let's let's do it like this. It was a good working session. Again, it's you guys saw what we're going to do. In reality, we're going to just eliminate everything and that will be it. So, we'll just present something super simplified to you guys next time where they say we're eliminating this one and we're just gonna um come out with a with a better ordinance. And just regarding setscape, we'll just continue it for a little bit of redefining and then approve it on the next one on January. Is that what your proposal?

Yeah. So my proposal mostly is uh if you wanted to take a look at it and if there's anything that actually stands out to you like we should keep this area um and I'll do the same maybe we can figure out where we want to incorporate that if it's not redundant such as one of the examples I think was if someone were to relocate a house maybe make sure that the house I don't know just something like that if there's something then we just let you basically try to keep it if there's something that jumps out, but that's why we went over to it. Uh, at least the recommendation for the director is we're going to scratch pretty much everything on it. Basically, you gave us homework over Christmas break.

No, that's that that Yeah. No call. No call. No, no, no. What I what I what we meant what we meant I I hate to do that. What I what I meant is just we we're kind of showing you a little bit of the back work that we do. It's not that we sometimes when we present say, "Hey, we're going to eliminate a certain and I like to make things super simple. It's not like just because we don't like it, but I just want you guys to know there's there's work behind it. So, don't do anything unless something really jumps out of you. If not, that's why we went over it. Don't do anything. We'll present something to you guys that say we're going to eliminate this code and that'll be The only suggestion I've got is the one about uh to human scale. We should change that to cubits. We should measure it in cubits." enough. Yeah,

I really had a fantasy of putting a trailer in a $10 million property just as a the ultimate. Yeah, but for example, we already have rules and regulations regarding that in every zone. So, we don't have to keep keep it right there. But yeah, we'll we'll look at All right. I'd entertain a motion then. I move the planning commission continue the request of Pleasant Grove City. Right. It's written Jory Walker in here just for as note. Yeah. For a code text amendment to Pleasant Grove City for a codeex. Oh yeah. To city code section 10-6-2 definitions to revise the definition of building. Wait, wait, wait.

10-15. Sorry, we got the wrong one. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thanks. Oh gosh. Continue whatever we were just talking about. Request to amend city code section 10-15-28 design review to amend or remove the requirements of the design of new buildings including residences. Oh yeah, I completely I'll second. Oops. To allow us time to do our homework over Christmas vacation. Okay. I have a do it while you're watching Elf. I have a motion I have a motion by Commissioner Butler and a second by Commissioner Phillips. All those in favor say I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. And then I would take a motion to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2025 meeting. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for November 13, 2025. I'll second. I have a motion by Commissioner Patton and a second by Commissioner M Martin. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. I'll move to adjurnn. So moved.