Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Six. This is our call to order. We'll move to the consent agenda.

Item 2.1, I move that we approve the minutes from January 22 of this fine year.

And second that one?

The year of our Lord.

In the year of our lord 2026, yes.

I heard a second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Moving into the regular agenda. For anybody that is here for item 3.1, which is flagship home request for review of transitional holding zoning at the Kirkham Estates, that item has been withdrawn from this meeting. It will likely come forward at another time.

I don't think it will be coming coming forward.

It maybe never will come forward.

Maybe at some point, but not anytime soon.

But it has been withdrawn from this meeting. Yes, sir. Please come.

Point of question, what happens to the TH5 temporary designation?

Kim, would you please address that question?

So as far as this application, they have withdrawn. I believe it fell out of contract as far as so this won't carry forward. I'm thinking maybe your question is what does the transitional holding zone mean? And it's a large five acre agricultural. It does allow housing on five acre lots. It's really to be able to get a property into the city but remain pretty much with what the rights were in the county. So it's it's just a holding zone. And then they'd had they moved forward, they would have to come back later and rezone it for some kind of development. Okay.

Thank you. We'll continue on with the regular agenda. Jacob.

Okay. Item 3.2 is public hearing and recommendation of Adam Albrecht's request for review of the Parker zone change on 2.4 acres located at 300 North Palomino Way changing the zoning from A1 to R122. And this zone change is consistent with the general plan designation of VLDRA for the area. And I know the applicant's plan is to come back with a future single family subdivision in the future. So with that I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? Seeing none. This is a pub sorry the applicant. Are you present? Not present. Alright. Carry on. Did anybody have any specific questions they wanted the applicant to address? No. Seeing none. This is a public hearing. At this time, we'll open the public hearing and invite anyone to the microphone that would like to speak to item 3.2. Mad rush has ended. We will close the public hearing and turn it over for a promotion or deliberation.

There were the online there was an online comment for this one.

Sorry. Let's reopen that public hearing and enter the online Comment. Comment. Would you mind reading it?

Yeah. Let me pull it up. Okay. So this comment comes from let's see CLG properties Sean and Jennifer Lewis. Lewis. In regards to this zone change for this piece of property we have no objections. I would like to bring forward an observation regarding 300 North. Currently there are six homes on septic systems and five on wells. My understanding is that all the sewer mains in this area go three different directions. The first being east towards 900 West which is currently sloped down and cannot be extended.

The second direction is towards Main Street which serves the Newman direction or development down Palomino Way. And the third direction is west towards Main Street 1500 West which serves the two Gurney developments. And some of that line actually runs north before turning west towards 1500 North. And tying into that main, I realized when these developments are happening that a lot of the infrastructure is provided by the developers regarding their property at the current moment sewer options for this five plus acres are becoming a concern for development in the future. If there are not options, it may be the case for the property to the West.

I'm simply reaching out to have the Planning and Zoning Commission aware of the infrastructure on 300 North to make you aware in the future if these properties on the North decide to develop. That there are options for affordable sewer and stubs to get sewer down 300 North. I'm simply asking that when these developments arise that you take that into consideration or the situation on 300 North into consideration. And if there are options for sewer into 300 North that they are not overlooked, maybe this is an area the city engineers experience is needed. So that is the comment. Thank you.

That being read, we will close the public hearing. Gary, did you want to address any of that?

Sure. Yeah. This area, there's basically two ways that sewer can flow out of here. Yeah. So if you look on the map there, so there is a sewer line that dead ends about in front of the property there. It's an eight inch sewer line. I think it's pretty deep. I can't see what the depth is of the sewer right there on 3rd East but on 11th West, they're like ten, eleven feet deep. So, an eight inch sewer line can handle hundreds of homes on it with depending on the grade and the slope and things like that. So, I think there's plenty of capacity there on the 30 sewer line and would be able to be reached if you have a basements and everything can flow out there too.

There's also another line that flows south on Palomino Way there, which is just to the west of the property there. It's a 10 inch line. It's a little bit shallower. It's about six feet deep there. So they may or may not be able to reach it. The homes along Palomino Way can get to it there. But there may not be able to, depending upon the grades and everything of homes on 300 North. But it can flow along 300 North. There's plenty of capacity there.

Forgive my ignorance with sewer infrastructure. Is this a development that once built out, they could tap into either? Would you be seeing the development go only one direction or either?

They could probably tap into either one. The one of Palomino Way is a 10 inches line. It has a lot more capacity course than an eight inches line. If they can reach it, and that's cheaper for them to reach that one, then they could go to that one. If they need to be deeper and they don't need to build up their development, then they could probably go out to 3rd North. And I would assume the same thing for people along Third North too there and other developments. I

just want to sum up what my understanding of this would be Kim, Gary, Jacob, I don't want exclude you. You're welcome to chime in as well. Didn't mean to treat you like junior or something here. You're a very seasoned professional, sir. But mean the comment is of course spot on but these are things that would happen with development the developer would pay for and attend to to this as I'm understanding this this is an island and the zone change is calling for exactly what we have on the general plan right so in my mind this is just we could discuss this but it's a slam dunk.

Doesn't really have much to do with the zone change.

Then if everyone's content I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Yeah go ahead.

Okay great for item 3.2 public hearing recommendation of Adam Albrecht's request the Parker zone change 2.4 acres at 300 North Palomino Way changing zoning from A1 agriculture to R1 22 residential agriculture I move that we approve the zone change with the findings that it is consistent with the general plan that it is development concerns would be met by developers eliminates an island that currently exists in the way things sit right now out of line with the general plan and of course include DRC comments. Second.

I make a suggestion

sorry that we. Oh oh. Please. Recommend for approval. Is this we recommend? Yes, yes, yes. My apologies. Just so so excited with how how spot on this one is. Sorry. No thank you.

Yes. Second stands.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Moves forward to city

hear three point three and three point four together? Okay.

Well I would but I'm open if you guys don't want that. But yeah.

Let's do

it. Perfect.

Okay. So item 3.3 is public hearing and recommendation of Grow Developments request for review of the fourteen fifty West twelve twenty North zone change on 5.25 acres located at that address 1450 W 1220 North changing from A1 to R122 and then item 3.4 is the same address and eight lot residential concept plan with no exceptions requested. So for the zone change like the last item this matches the general plan designation of very low density residential agriculture for this space. And then on the concept plan, so it's eight lots that all meet the 22,000 square foot requirement I know the applicant was just looking for some feedback on the layout but like I said no exceptions are requested so you're actually the final approval body the concept but for the zone change, it will be recommended to the city council. With that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? If you would like to, you may address or give us more information.

Hi. Boyd Brown, Woodgrove Development. I don't really have any

mentioned you were looking looking for for feedback? Feedback.

Yeah. There's there were some challenges on the the layout with the spacing of the road. We're trying to maintain the existing home on the property, but we've looked at a couple different options. Yeah, any feedback you might have or open to.

Any comments or questions for the applicant?

Are there any trails through this area? I don't know. I was trying to look on the maps and I didn't see any and it doesn't look like there's but are there any plans?

There's not? No. Left jail? No. No. Okay. Not in this area. Okay.

Would you like to put one in? Start something great.

That's right. Would you like

that maybe some smaller density? We did look at some trails, but no, this is kind of rural. It's the very low density. Mean, these are big lots. So we're happy to have larger lots and not trails or the other way around.

I did yeah. Yeah. I I have nothing for you. I this is not a complicated one.

This is a public hearing. If anybody from the public is here to speak specifically to item 3.3, which is the zone change. Please come forward and speak.

Danny Gutierrez, I built a subdivision with Mike DuBois just on the other side of 1220. Our only question, we're not opposed. Mike owns a property to the to the north here. I own some property still in the subdivision and west of here. You'll probably see me coming through here shortly.

But my only concern that I have, and Kim probably remembers this, when we built Tightens Drive there, we were asked or required to widen that road past the standard width because what we understood was our road was gonna come through and connect to the property north of this. And so my other question is is, you know, does it make any sense to kinda keep that connectivity where that road time strike comes across and ties into the road right above it? You know, we're Mike's

not opposed to it. I'm not opposed to it. It's just,

you know, do we wanna kinda have a conversation about how that road should look? We get a little concerned with the Kaylor's property that Mike has some rights to potentially purchase that might interfere with layout on this three acres that's still gonna remain there. It's gonna kinda be locked a little bit. And so it's just just a question of do we work with Boyd and work with the city to to make these roads work really, really well. I understand exactly what Boyd's doing.

It makes sense for for this particular property, but it does put the Cala property kind of in a really weird spot. And, you know, you may have a road where they're proposing it, and now you have another road just two houses down that, you know, you're gonna have three different entrances. You know, Titans Drive is gonna be in the middle. You have one cul de sac where the Califf property is and then, you know, Boyd Street that's coming in. So, you know, it's I I think changing the zone is great, but that would be our only concern. It's just, you know, you're gonna potentially have three roads within, you know, two fifty feet or 300 feet, which is kinda scary to me. Sure.

So just a thought. Thank you.

Okay.

Fort Peacock. I live on 1533 West 1220 North, just a little bit west of this proposed development. I have no problem with the zone change. It's nice to see some bigger lots. One of the one of my concerns is on the north boundary or property line of this property, there's property north property line.

Clear down, and then it turns and goes south down to my property. Property. Zach Taylor lives up straight across the road. He has a share, and then I have my water. And then I guess Danny has a share. My concern is on that ditch on the north, I've already piped this the ditch running south. I took that upon myself and did that because problems of trying to maintain the ditch. The ditch that runs east and west on the north side of this property is

kind of

a delicate ditch. It don't hold water real well. It grows in, and we have to burn it. When how close can they build, Kim? Five feet. Correct?

For detached, like, accessory structure is five feet. The main home has a bigger setback.

Right. But the detached building building can be within five feet of the property line. With that said, there's no way to burn and maintain that ditch. We've all I've already fought this and and didn't get nowhere. Nowhere. I got a detached there's a neighbor that's got a detached garage that's 18 inches away from my property line. Another one is five feet. They'd all been at 18 inches if we wouldn't have changed. Mhmm. But that's all I could get was five feet.

Correct, It's water. Then It's down there because of flooding somebody because I can't take care of my bitch. I just think it's something that needs to be looked at. It probably needs to be caught. It it's a big concern.

There's a last year, we fought with building debris blowing in it from the north from that development, blowing down, clogging the ditch. It's just that it's something that's gotta be addressed in my opinion. Now Jim Cortese that's selling his property has been real good to help me. But we're the only ones that ever do anything with it. With him leaving, I'm gonna get stuck by myself, and that's a big project.

But I don't feel like I should be responsible and worry about that all the time that my water's gonna flood somebody. The way it is right now, we don't have trouble. Jim can take some of the water. We can divert it. We can do things with it.

But with the development there, it's not good. My other concern is in front of my property, 1220 is still just it's you have seventeen and eighteen foot of asphalt. That's all you have. It's a very narrow road. With this construction that's gone on at Pioneer Pioneer Heights, it's not safe.

It we need if they're gonna do a development, they need to think of closing the road, just local traffic, and get the construction trucks, cement trucks coming in up through the subdivision where the roads are wider instead of having them on twelve twenty. The other point that I'd like to know is it said in the DRC comments that they would be bringing the sewer to 1,200 if they don't contain it on their development. Is that true? Is that how it's gonna be?

Please address your comments to us. We'll get to them in the end. So this is a hearing. You're supposed to speak, and then we can address them when you're finished. Okay. I'll go.

Thank you.

State your name, please.

James Cortesi. Thank you.

I want to say that

the irrigation water. I'm sorry. No, no.

We've been there twenty one years and the irrigation water that comes down that ditch Bart's talking about does flood my property out. I'm just saying that it will be an issue if it's not addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I can just speak to that since I

lot of the storm drain over in this area. Your name one more time. Oh, Danny Gutierrez.

Thank you.

So right in front of Jim's house, we did put a big, I think it was a 16 inches irrigation box, or well, probably a four foot irrigation box with a 16 inches line that drains down through Pioneer Heights. I will say we'll need irrigation water still on our property West of BART. But I think piping is probably the easiest route to go, making sure we have some good irrigation boxes that we can divert water properly. But I know that there are a couple of exit points there if it ever floods that we can catch that water and bring it down through the subdivision. Thank you.

Anybody else who wants to speak to this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. There were no All comments on this right. A couple of things there. Width of Titan Drive and the alignment of the roads. Gary, do you have any input there?

Where they put their road is all dependent upon our standards of road widths and stuff. This is not a collector, an arterial. Minor arterial. Minor collector. Minor collector. That's next comment number nine. So it will have quite a bit of wide pavement. That was one of his questions there. I think 44 feet of pavement. So it's just pretty wide road.

And that's 1220. Correct? 1220 will be widened?

Yes. Twelvetwenty. Okay. Yep, correct. So when developments come in, will be required to hold to that standard there. So the road will be quite a bit wider when it's improved. The So if they meet our minimum road distances between intersections, then they can put that road kind of where they need to, best fits for their development there. And I appreciate his concerns there. We would require a stub out to the the north from this property to connect onto the subdivision up north eventually when that middle piece gets developed in there.

Yeah. That would connect to Whisper Hollow?

Yeah. Whisper Hollow. Yes. Whisper Hollow. And as far as the sewer is concerned, the sewer is in 1220 North. And it will flow to the west till it gets to Titan Drive, and then it will flow down Titan Drive there. So it would not need to connect over there to 1700 West. But the storm drain, though, is a different issue, if that's what he's referring to. That probably will have to connect over to 1700 West. But we can work with the developer on that too and see what is best for them.

This isn't the first time that this area has brought up the infrastructure of ditches. We've heard quite a few of them over the years. They are used. This is an agricultural area. Is this something that would be considered a project to pipe? And that would be a developer to pipe it, right? Is that a city project?

It wouldn't be a city project. It would need, of course, the irrigation company's approval and all that too. And just from looking at it here, it appears that the ditch isn't on this piece of property's property. It's on the northern property there. So I don't know that this developer would be required to ditch it.

But, sir, with with the problem, I understand where it sits.

But if you build a home or, I mean, a

accessory building five feet off the property line, how am I going to maintain that ditch? Because it is right on the property line.

That was going be my next question. Thank you for reminding me. The maintenance that they typically are burning at this point, that is problematic with a five foot.

It probably will be. Yeah. I don't have an answer to that. And that they're maybe working with the irrigation companies, see if they have some resources or something. I don't know.

So irrigation company don't send in on DRCs?

No. Not not typically. No. Why? I don't know. Maybe ask them. I don't know.

Just a reminder of the Robert's Rules of Order. Please please have your time to address. We will get to the comments that have been made. Let's not shout out anymore, please. Thank you. Kim, did you have

I guess maybe

Did you

want to address that?

To address that a little bit more, we do require applicants to contact. We we provide the contact information so that they can get a hold of Lehigh Irrigation, but they don't because it's separate, it's not Lehigh City. Lehigh Irrigation is a private company. So we refer them to work with them, but they don't sit on the DRC. But there's definitely coordination that happens between the applicant and and a lot of times with engineering and the irrigation company.

But in this case where the property does not have the irrigation ditch on it, they were likely not notified or brought to the attention of this?

Not yet. And we usually don't require any kind of coordination until we get to preliminary plat and then definitely at final plat because at this point, we're just you know, things may move around. Sure. But, yeah, preliminary would probably be the first time we'd recommend, hey. Reach out to the irrigation company. But like Gary said, if it's not on if the ditch isn't on this property as a city, our requirements can only require piping if it's on the property.

So Understood. Okay. So 30,000 foot view in brass tacks. First of all it is is concept nothing's happening tomorrow nonetheless an improved concept does give some invested invested abilities here so we want to be mindful of that and I say this as much to the commission question clarify with staff as well as to the room so we're all in full understanding obviously the commission can only do what we're legally empowered to do it's best when government does what they're empowered to do and not more that's where we get lawsuits but this is a very real situation that we're describing here nonetheless it's not on this property this developer can't be asked to address it. So without you know dodging the very real need of the citizens what's the right play here let's not let the dotting of I's and crossing of T's which needs to happen negate you know if we've got a real you know, issue for this corner of the city.

So thoughts staff on

Yeah I don't know I don't want to step on engineering stoves, but I know in on previous developments, we we have done, like, berming on on the develop on the piece that's being developed. We could have them put some kind of a berm so that the water is retained. You know what I mean? So that helps prevent water from coming onto their property and flooding them out. But I don't know. I'm sure the irrigation company might have some other ideas on what could or couldn't be done with that ditch?

So to me, it sounds like the issue is more the burning and structures too close to the property line. And if it's five feet off the property line, I don't know how big the fires get, but I imagine pretty big. So it is a problem. I don't know. Maybe just throwing it out there. Maybe the developer could increase that depth a little bit, maybe to 10 feet or something, offset for I don't know, just thinking about that. But I don't have an answer right off the top of my head other than that. Yeah, that's an interesting idea that perhaps if we there's some kind of a

safety issue that maybe there's a note on the plat that says accessory structures in this particular because of the ditch and the maintenance needs, that instead of our typical minimum of five feet, we they have to increase that to 10.

Or Is that within our power? I guess not in current code. Right? Sorry,

Nate.

Sorry. I forgot

to look that up.

Yeah. We could definitely look into it and see if that could be legally required, which, you know, if that's if we're trying to mitigate some kind of a a risk or a danger, we may be able to or at least recommend it if nothing else. So Mhmm.

But for clarity, if as far as the stitch being piped, that would be something that would be addressed on the development of that property, not this property. Understood. Any other questions for staff?

Well, so according to the concept plan, that on the western side, that's a road on the north end, right? So the road goes up north and then heads to the west. So it's really only affecting the one lot on the east of that road. Where if they were to build a chicken coop out there five feet from the from the ditch, and it looks like the ditch kind of tapers to the north a little bit at that point. So I'm just thinking really only affects the one lot as a concept.

Would the irrigation company pipe the ditch? I don't know. I could see them going, no, it's not our job.

You probably have to ask them. Yeah. Don't know for sure.

Any other questions for staff?

And I'm just I'm reiterating this is in line with the general plan. Right. Okay.

And the first item is a zone change.

Yep I know. Well and so you know where my wheels are going is of course a zone change. If it were not in line with the general plan then I feel like that has that kicks up more muck but it is in line with the general plan. I'm just thinking through how to respect everyone's rights here, development rights, recognizing that there are going to be some negative externalities that the neighbors potentially feel but nonetheless where that responsibility lies this is where it gets fun and I don't mean that in the way we usually use the adjective fun right.

To be clear I'm gonna clarify. I'm gonna open up the public hearing for three point four when we're done with three point three so you'll have another chance to come speak. I I do see you. I'm not ignoring you. I promise. I will entertain a motion for 3.3.

Motion for 3.3, public hearing recommendation of Grow Developments request for review of the 1450 West, 1220 North zone change on 5.25 acres located at 1450 West, 1220 North changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R1 22 residential agriculture. The recommendation being that we approve with the findings being that the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area is consistent with the policies and goals of the general plan and it is suitable for the uses requested and it will overall be a benefit to the community and please include all DRC comments.

Recommending approval?

Yes, I said. Did I not say that? That's what

I meant. I'll second that.

Motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Having already heard and seen 3.4, were there any questions that you wanted to address the staff before we open

the public hearing? Do you want to

pull the applicant up? Applicant, would you like to come forward and address anything you've heard thus far?

Think that'd be useful. Don't look at the public commentary.

Is it okay if I say one thing

really Thanks. I'm happy to address it. I don't know that I have a quick solution. One second. Think it'd

be good just to clarify. This is a concept. This way back is a preliminary subdivision has a public hearing at some point in the future.

Yeah. Correct. I think that was going be one of my comments. There's a lot of work we still have to do on the design engineering, and working with the neighbors, the staff, and engineering. I just ditch is something we were aware of. The concern I hadn't thought about the burning as a maintenance. So, I I mean, I think we would want to find a solution to that also. We're generally not trying to build structures in the way of Flames. Controlled fires.

Yeah.

But again, I'm happy to try to work to that. I don't know what the solution is tonight, but I was glad that some light was put on it. Again, it is concept. Yeah, we'll work to try to make the best layout we

can on it. Legal, I have a question. Technically, three point four is not a public hearing, so I misspoke. I still wouldn't like to entertain his comment that he has in the back. Is that within our purview? I believe that would be okay where you've opened it up as the commission member or as the commission chair. You've let

him speak and so that should be fine.

Thank you. I do have a question from

Mr. One Brown if I of the DRC comments asked about the outbuildings, if they were going to remain or if they're I would assume that they're going to go away,

but Yes, clarify. Current plan is to demo the outbuildings, and we're going to keep the house. And if we stick with this layout, all those outbuildings would be in a new building lot. Okay.

Thank you. Yep.

Any other questions?

Not for you.

Not yet. Okay. Thank you. With legal's grace, I was able to allow you to come up and speak again. So you are welcome. Anyone is welcome as well, not just you. But anybody is welcome to come and address this concept.

Bart Peacock again. Sorry I get upset. It's just that we've been through this, and been through it, and been through it. And I'm kinda don't know how much more energy and money I got to try to fix ditches when I didn't create them. I didn't create it. I'm in the process of piping some more ditch on the east side of my property because of how close the homes are. There's a swimming pool right there. They claim they're getting water in there. Don't know how, but they are. It's five feet off my property line.

But one of the other comments, I've got to have some way to access the head gate that's right at the railroad tracks on that ditch. It's worked out fine over the years because Jim has gone up and get it. He can go through his pasture, get it. But when this is all closed, a fence gets put in, I'm gonna I don't know how I'm gonna get to that head gate. So it's there's another concern.

The ditch is a So, thank you. Thank you. Is

there anybody else that wanted to address this item? Seeing none, we'll close that opportunity for speaking that wasn't permitted anyway. But we'll do it. I do have a question about that. Is there any protections that come with irrigation valves and where they turn on ditches or where they do that? Are there any I may assume access has to be granted. Or how does that or grandfathered in. How does that work? You know, that's a good question.

It's never really come up before. Just looking at the site plan, it might be possible for him to walk up the road and onto the new property across the ditch there. But he'd have to be trespassing on the other Does he

get an easement?

Yeah. I don't know if there is an easement across there. I imagine there is for the irrigation company. So there should be. Or at least prescriptive anyway, yeah. So that would be a great question I could probably bring up with the irrigation company.

Of great comments tonight.

Yeah, this hasn't come up before. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Any question other questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Item 3.4.

Spit it out. Oh, I don't have the coherent.

It's a little sticky.

It is. I mean one thing I do just want to we don't typically necessarily address an individual citizen but I do want to say I feel for Mr. Peacock I understand what he's saying here. He's working with the infrastructure that's been put upon him. And I wanna make sure we're not wanna make sure we're we're tending to that.

The guy's got to have access to that gate. And at the same time the applicant yeah, it's not on his property which we can't require people to do things on property that isn't theirs that's not even legal. So I just yeah this is really I'll say again, a fun one. But mean, I don't wanna just throw my arms up at it. I've I'd like to see a meaningful answer in this.

Could pull the with your blessing, could pull the applicant back up again one more time. Mister Boyd Wright. I know it's just concept plan. I would just love to to hear from you. You've taken in all these comments. You're aware of the situation here. You obviously are not expected to do things that don't fit on your property. Is this moves forward? We'll be working to find some solutions here with the neighbors?

Yeah and I I think that's all I could commit to now. Of course. Again. I can't

make it.

You have rights here as well.

It's someone else's property to do far as the access, I could look into that too. But again, that is I don't know. I I don't know the answer to that. And I'm and I'm not sure as a property owner it is my job to solve I an access issue that realize that. And I think we can come up with a solution.

My guess is that pipe will be ditched the future combination of either what I'm doing or what Mr. Gutierrez and Dubois are doing next to me. Mean, the layout we have like Ken pointed out, has a public right away there so that that ditch would be under in a public right of way or in a utility so it would be easy to pipe that way. But I don't on the other side, I'm not sure. It seems like we would want to have it piped if we're building some new houses

in

there.

Yeah.

But at this point, I think it's too early for me to commit to anything on particularly where it's not on my property. Completely agree me. Go through the engineering.

Me be clear on that.

Most of the irrigation companies have pretty specific, there's either easements or there's not and you know we do as Kim pointed out, do have to work with the irrigation companies on all of our plats to impact our site plan. So something like building of swale or something like that makes sense. We would want to do it. We don't want it flooding on our property. And again, working as far as the maintenance of it with the fire and stuff is something that doesn't sound great for a new new home either. So we're all, I think, aligned and coming to a solution. I just I don't know that I have an answer to how to solve it tonight.

And I wouldn't expect it. I

also know it's early, but speak to the topography. Would this would you need to bring in fill for this plot or for these for these plots?

I don't think we have enough engineering to know. My guess is yes. It seems like a lot of the projects down here do have some fill, and I think that'll be dictated by the the how we grade the roads and try to get the storm drain flow and also where the depths of the sewer are. It seems like the sewer is pretty deep in here But I don't know that I have an answer on what the final grade will be yet. And again, as Kim pointed out, this being conceptual, we'll dig in and our preliminary plat and final plat answer a lot of those things.

Do we know who the neighbors to your north are? The one whose property does have the ditch on it?

Yeah, that's the gentleman who's mister Dubois, I believe. I've never met him. Mister Gutierrez, I am familiar with. So, I it sounds like they have a concept in their hand right now. I think they're thinking about if they haven't made an application. So I think it would be easy to work with them in this situation where they have a similar idea of developing their property. You've welcome to ask them that question. I can't speak them to what they're going to do. Okay.

Thank you.

Yep. Anything else? Any other question? No. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Just by point of discussion again, I'd I agree with what Commissioner Jackson said earlier and that I appreciate mister Peacock and others expressing their concerns. I see this as being more black and white though that because this is administrative item and it does meet code we do need to approve it. And then the auxiliary

I agree with that. Let me be clear. It is administrative legally we have to approve it. Sorry go ahead.

No that's it. Okay so with that in mind I'll put forward a motion. Item 3.4 public hearing and consideration of Grow Developments request for approval of the 1450 West 1220 North concept and eight lot residential development located at 1450 West 1220 North with this being an approval not a recommendation of approval but actual approval with no modifications with the findings that this is consistent with Lehi City's development code. The proposed concept does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan and please include all DRC comments. Believe there were 10.

Would you add to that a recommendation that the developer continue to engage with the neighbors? Love it.

Of course not necessarily something we can hold.

Nope. That's why it's recommendation. Love it.

Okay. I'll second.

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

Sure are. Gentlemen I encourage you please keep eyes on the notices this will hit the next stage of actual of a real far more solid development plan and there's there's more teeth to be sunk into at that point and we want to keep an eye on how this all develops as well.

Item

3.5 is public hearing and recommendation of Lawrence Snows. Request for review of a zone change on point six six acres located at 151 East 1450 North changing the zoning from TH five to R1 flex. This request is consistent with the general plan designation of low density residential. The applicant wants to demolish the existing home and build a new one. But to do so they need the zone change change to get the building permit. So with that I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any

questions. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Please come forward if you have anything else to add. You're not? No. Thank you. Alright. This is a public hearing. This time, we'll open the public hearing for anybody who would like to address item 3.5.

None. And this one also did not have any comments. So we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to

the commission. It dots all the i's, crosses all the t's, and is in line with general plan. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong. You're not wrong.

Item three point if I may. You may. Item 3.5 Lawrence Snow's request for review of a zone change on point six six acres at 151 East 1450 North changing the zone from TH5 to R1 flex. I move that would give a positive recommendation with the findings that everything meets code this is consistent with the general plan. DRC comments included.

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

3.6.

Love items like that.

When's that going forward? Just so we can give the applicant some clarification.

That item would go to city council. City council does not have another meeting until March 10. Really? So March 10. March 10.

Spring break for city council? Several

of them are gonna be at a conference Twenty fourth. During their, normally their second meeting this month.

So they canceled. Yeah. I just I just canceled. Cancel. Cancel. Cancel. Okay. I did hear they had some funky scheduling issues this year around. Yeah. Some difficulty on calendaring. Okay.

Let's keep this rolling.

Let's do it. 3.6 public hearing and consideration of Kairos Land Development's request for approval of the Belmont Flex Suites concept plan. A non residential development located at 1552 North Boston Street with an exception for building setbacks. The office warehouse use is a permitted use in this zone and the exception request is to the max setback requirement of 50 feet in the design standards. And the request is due to the need for the module parking between the building and the street.

And it's kind of a weird paradox. We do allow for the module parking between the building and the street but it exceeds that 50 foot setback. And staff is comfortable with the exception request in case you're wondering. The applicant would like the Planning Commission to weigh in on the total number of parking stalls needed. They show well on this concept layout they show 27.

We actually received an updated version that's not in the packet that I believe has 34 and maybe they can talk about that if they'd like or if you're comfortable with that. But the parking is based on the use and there was some concern over uncertainty over as to what type of uses they may get in this flex office warehouse and so they were kind of locked into counting the parking in one way but there may be they can probably talk more about concerns over that side of things with the uses they may have coming in. And with that I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present?

Hello Commission, it's great to My name is Dustin Carr with Kairos Real Estate. And if you don't mind, my associate Jonas here has some papers that are the updated concept plan. You can bring those up. And he has a copy for each of you. It looks very similar.

And what you're looking at is the north facing direction. The paper he hands you there is in landscape format. So effectively, if want to rotate it 90 You'll degrees there be able to see the direction So of what we've done and unfortunately, this was post getting on to this meeting but as we made these changes it was to reduce our building square footage unfortunately but in order to add more parking which is necessary. Our goal was to make it fully code compliant with the parking numbers as they are set in the code. There is one section of the parking that I want to get to but I wanted to address that first part about the variance for the or excuse me about the setback issue being 50 feet.

One of the major issues the reason why we weren't able to meet it we're actually at 59, is because there is a 10 foot easement for utilities there off of our property line. So I hope that that one's understandable, that we're not trying to push the building farther away. We're trying to maximize the space. And hopefully that's a very simple concern we can hurdle over together. The parking on the other hand though, the situation with this is that we're trying to fit a gap in the industry of what is being offered for flex and industrial space.

As you're probably well aware in that area specifically there is a ton of industrial that's gone up all along Redwood that is generally a minimum of 4,500 square feet of space. And I outside of my development experience also own a small company that uses a small warehouse space but we can't afford even to find a place that has an area that small here in this Lehigh area. There pretty much is no area that has a warehouse less than about 4,000 square feet. For example, I'm renting some 800 square feet from someone else down the road and sharing a space with them and then I have another warehouse in Spanish Fork. But I as a small business owner will benefit greatly when I can even purchase one of my own units or lease from my own company here after we develop this because this fits that gap where we'll have multiple opportunities between the roughly 1,200 square feet up to about 1,800 square feet.

And then additionally, one of the discussions I wanted to have was about mezzanines being able to offer some additional storage spaces right above an office that we're looking at a design. So while this is in the concept phase of course, our goal initially is to first hit the parking numbers. As you see we have 34 units there, 34 parking stalls now. But the code is stating that parking numbers are calculated off of gross square footage which is the outside footprint of a building. One the of challenges with that when it comes to industrial space is that as you can see with this being divided so many times, each of our walls are roughly around 12 inches in thickness between each of these units.

So our square footage for net usable square feet is actually all that we can rent it for. Of course, when we appraise it and we go to rent these units out they can measure from the interior. And therefore we're down to as you see on that paper I think it was 16,100 square feet roughly. And so at that number, we would technically be over parked right now. So what we were hoping was that with this concept plan, if we could simply ask for I'm not sure if you have a certain language to it, but similar to this concession to or excuse me the setback would be a concession to allow us to put in mezzanines and not have those mezzanines count against us for a parking requirement number.

The mezzanines are intended to be used for simply storage or maybe additional office space above the original office that we intend on putting in some of these units. We don't intend on putting mezzanines in every one of them and we definitely don't intend on them taking more than maybe a third of the space at the most. Now I know that was an issue that wasn't planned for in discussion tonight. So I appreciate you allowing me to speak on that tonight and I'll pause there.

Any questions for the applicant?

Not yet.

Well, so as this is a concept plan, how Yes, sir. Conceptually speaking, how high do you think this building's gonna be?

I believe it's only 20 feet tall.

20 feet?

Yep. Okay.

I think you're off the hook for

the moment. Oh, great. Well, you made that too easy on me.

Oh, we'll try. Come Come up with something better. Don't challenge us. Thank

you.

This is a public hearing. If there's anybody in the public that would like to address item 3.6, this is your time. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

I would love to hear if Carrie or anyone else in the crew has thoughts as pertaining to parking.

That's probably a better question for Kim, maybe. Well,

never mind then. Gary?

My opinion would definitely. Kim.

Yeah, I don't think what they're asking for is unreasonable by any means. And this is some of the uses we have, I feel, a little bit more dialed in. This one, we don't know what's gonna be in these units. It's hard. So we just have this kind of a catch all. You know, if if it's vague or we don't really know what else to qualify or put it under, that's what we're counting as the parking requirement. So Mhmm. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to to go based on the the actual square footage even though our code says gross. And the mezzanines, yeah, they probably wouldn't have a significant impact. I think a lot of this becomes self regulating.

If somebody tries to rent a suite and there's no parking, just I don't know. They probably wouldn't wanna stay there.

They show up. They see that it's already pretty heavily parked. They know they need a lot of parking. They're gonna look elsewhere.

So I think for the size of the building, this isn't out of character of what we've seen on other

to

parking. A a connection to the road. Neighborhood to the east. But, you know, if somebody was gonna park on the street, they'd probably park out on Boston Street. So and Boston Street is wide enough for some on street parking. So Mhmm. Even though we can't count that, they have a quite a bit of frontage there. So anyways, to to make a long story short, I don't have any major issues, but it's it's your discretion.

You know, I didn't see any Yeah. I'm not seeing I it. Wanna make sure I don't have a blind spot. That's I

asked. No. That's great.

I just sorry I bothered to ask Gary. Was clearly Gary's

the one. He knows them.

It's because I

hold you in

the highest answer.

The residential condos to the East 1630 does not punch through. Correct? It it's a dead end?

Road doesn't, but there is a pedestrian connection just on the south side of the the auto auto body shop, there is

a Mhmm.

Right there. Pedestrian only. Yeah.

Remember talking that one through.

Yeah. Yeah.

And then also this concept and the concept that we've been shown on screen, it doesn't there's no rear access for trucks, right? Or is there? May, please.

That's correct. So generally speaking, the best use for a truck to come in would be to effectively do a hammer head turnaround similar to what a fire truck would do. But that's why with these spaces they're small enough that the amount of truck usage coming in and out of them is gonna be rare if at all.

I often look at your garbage bins placements. I mean, I appreciate that you've kind of put them on ends there. Still requires a turnaround for those big trucks, which can be challenging. So just something to think through. I know this is concept. Just want that to be well on your radar. And yeah. I mean, as far as the mezzanines are concerned, I think I agree with Kim that I don't believe it's a overly consequential piece to this.

I I think this clears the concept, Mark. Yeah. You can get a little more nitty gritty when there's more details worth it, but it's it's moving forward. I'm not worried about what rights that invests at this. There'll be small things to tweak undoubtedly but this is it's a concept I think it's a sound concept. That's my take.

The one other question I had for staff is setbacks to the residential actually. So we've got obviously, they're conceptually putting a 12 foot. And then you also have a road across the street. Does that count as setback? Because it's not structure or it's not property line.

Again, directly to the east. Yeah.

So that east, the reason they have that 12 foot, that would be their minimum landscape buffer. And it's probably good you asked how high the building would be. That's actually one of our DRC comments. If they can keep it at 20 feet, that 12 feet would be the bare minimum. If it goes over, then they're gonna have to shrink their footprint a little bit. So for every foot over 20 feet, you would increase your buffer by that same amount of space. So but, yeah, so they'll have to landscape it. The fencing's already in. There's

know if there is the pedestrian access to that's already there? Do we know if people are, I mean, I don't know how you would know this but if people are using that street, that residential street to park and then sneaking through

Yeah. I

I mean, I'd rather park on Boston Street because that's much more of a Yeah.

Yeah. I don't think we've, you know, seen anything like that. But right now, you know, where this is vacant and then the other use right now is auto body shop. You you do have the swim school and things, but those are up quite a bit farther. And then you have a landscape company. So I don't think we'd really see a big demand for people to

because, you know, we don't know what's going in there. So let's say

It could be a donut shop or

CrossFit or something.

Or an MLM, right? And they're having their nightly meetings and they're parking all over the place with I would I would hate to have the residents come back later and go, hey, what's why was this approved? But I'm I am also not a big fan of huge parking lots.

Right. If we can win it.

So I don't find this a problem. I just want to address the fact that, hey, maybe that if somebody crazy comes in there and they have nightly meetings of a thousand people. It doesn't sound like there's enough space.

I don't think there's space

for

a for a thousand person meeting there.

I hate to hyper bowl, but

maybe I am.

And I'm gonna look and see. I'm trying to remember if that that might actually be a private street.

Someone was gonna ask is 4230 HOA? Is 4230 a private street?

It is. It's common area. So worst case, they could just put no parking. Yeah. And tow tow people. There is

a lot of parking even in the image. It's already happening on the street. Right?

Yeah. Is there I saw one car. No. It looks like there's whole line of them up there. I was going to the Google view on the ground. Yeah.

I mean, there's

Yeah. Probably some of the residents.

No. Undoubtedly. Yeah. Who who wouldn't? I mean

Yeah. They could say, you know, resident parking only for the exchange and Yep. And tell them if they it got bad.

Okay. Thank you. Well.

Did ASD have a property on that side of the street or is it on the other Side? 1500 North.

Yeah. Did you say ASD?

I I don't know if it's there now, but do do they own prop property around here?

The school district's property is a little bit farther east. It's over by the fire station. Okay. They own a a pretty big piece that's, you know, big enough for either a junior high or maybe even a high school. But that's right across the street from the new fire station out there.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Yep. You're all being fired. Right.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant or each other?

I'm ready to make a motion.

Yeah. I think we beat this to Please. The

You did it.

I asked one question, and I'll send her jumping over.

Keep it down.

We're at 3.6, right?

Yeah. Okay.

Item 3.6, public hearing and consideration of Keros, land developments request for approval of the Belmont Flex Suites concept plan, a non residential development located at 1552 North Boston Street with an exception for building setbacks. I move that we approve with the exceptions and with the findings that the proposed concept is consistent with the Lehigh City development code and the proposed concept does does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan. Please include all DRC comments.

Would you be okay if you put something in there about using the net square footage of the building instead of the gross square footage?

Sure. Yes. Thank you. For parking.

Parking tabulation include net square footage instead of gross.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second all favor. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. 3.7. See you

later. Yep.

Item 3.7 is public hearing and consideration of Darryl Hodgkins. Request for approval of a flag lot located at 645 West 2100 North in the RA 1 zone. This flag lot was actually previously approved in 2019 but the approval expired over the last several years. So they're back with the same plans for that. Both lots meet the requirements for RA1 zone. So with that I'll turn over the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Daryl Hodgson. I don't really have anything to add. I mean, it's it was previously approved. We haven't changed the plan. We've lived here for about eight and a half years, and life just got in the way and I didn't get around to getting a subdivided, but we're ready to, you know, build a new house and so hopefully this will not be, you know, be an easy approval. Alright. But if you have questions Any questions for the applicant? No.

Think you're pretty pretty safe tonight. Alright. Thanks. This is a public hearing. Is anybody that would like to speak to item 3.7? We'll open the public hearing now. Seeing none. This one did have a comment. Right? Or was it

3.8.

3.8. Okay. 3.7. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Can I make a motion, mister chair? Yes, please. Please? Okay. On item 3.7, public hearing and consideration of Darryl Hutchins request for approval of Flag Lot located at 645 West 21 North in the RA Dash 1 residential agricultural zone. I move that we approve the flag lot findings that it meets the requirements for a flag lot. It's not going to be close to existing homes. It'll be located and conducted in a matter in compliance with the goals and policy of Lehigh City and please include all DRC comments.

I'll second it. Motion in the second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Well, there we go.

Item

three. Eight is public hearing and consideration of Symphony Homes' request for preliminary subdivision approval of Heritage Meadows. A 13 lot residential development located at 1250 West 800 North. All 13 lots meet the R122 standard requirements. The applicant is considering there's a DRC comment that talks about a trail connection and a bridge.

But that change would require updated plans which you're not seeing tonight. But the applicant as they're considering that still wanted to get this plan set approved just to be able to weigh both options. And you may have noticed the zoning on the property still looks like it's not updated, but we actually recently recorded the zone change ordinance. So the zoning is right for this property as well with that R-one Hundred 22 zone. So with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? I guess I did have a question about that public Any questions? No? The applicant present. Good

evening. I'm Russ Wilson with Symphony Homes. And I don't know if I have much to add, but happy to answer any questions. Any questions?

I think we're easy right now.

Let's let's ask the the connection the bridge. Let's address that right now I guess.

Do you want me to do that?

Yeah let's wait till after it comes up in public comment.

Okay alright.

And then we'll talk to you after. We don't have just need to get what we're going to. Yeah. Just just know what's coming. We might

know what they are.

Put it in to the record. So this is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.8, we will open the public hearing now.

My name is Joshua Lutz. I am a neighbor in just the neighborhood to the west of the development. I found out about a month ago, I guess the December, that they were going to do the development, which is exciting. More neighbors is great. I guess not everyone feels that way.

Meetings before.

It's just this one. So we use the Wasatch Trail that's just to the south of there a lot. We go down to Sage Vista. Our neighborhood has a bridge connection. I reached out to the city to ask if that was going to be required for this. And they said that it was not. It's not part of the general plan. But I talked to Mike West and a couple of the council members. And they're all in support of the bridge. I made a petition from my neighborhood, got 16 responses, clarified that in exchange for the bridge, probably they would want to see an incentive of one or two lots.

And two people said no. They didn't want that. But 14 people said yes. The people that said no still said that they wanted a bridge. The 14 that said yes did so knowing that there would be a bridge. Their comments were that increased safety, increased access to the trails. It's great. They want more trails in Lehi. When I saw the plans, I was kind of surprised that they're all more than half acre lots. Neighborhood my neighborhood has a lot of lots that are onethree of an acre.

I don't think it'd be crazy to let the developer have smaller lots, increase the number of lots and decrease the lot size. I think it'd be in the same vein as what the neighborhoods are like right now. And the trail would be really great. Yeah, I think that's all I have to say. Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else here that would like to speak to this? Well, let's read that comment for the record. Jacob, if you would.

Yeah. Good thing is I can still read even if you guys can't right now. So it says, and it's from Kara Traveler. I'm supporting this development under the condition the city has the developer put in a bridge over the wastage to the trail from the new neighborhood. This will be beneficial for the neighbors in the new development as well as those living in the area already. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no comment, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. I

sorry. I just have to note. So I mean, appreciate mister Boots' comment. I don't know if ever to my memory the years I've been on this commission a resident has actually suggested increased density for an amenity. Like I'm picking my jaw up and putting it back on my face. It it's a great comment. It's just that

It's never happened.

It's never am I wrong?

You are not wrong. Okay.

Alright. I No. I'm over shock.

Do think it's interesting. The comment was is that they would likely ask for density in lieu, which is an option, not the only option. But it is an option that the city often uses Mhmm. In that case. But that is just wanna make sure you understand that's not the only option the city has to negotiate that connection. But I know that you have comment or question for the applicant.

Just regarding that bridge and actually looking at the property, would there be a connection to the church that's right there too?

No. Likely church. It it is a little unusual. I have to say there is a the when the church was built, they stubbed a sidewalk into this property. And we've we have talked to the church and they said, no, we don't have any plans to connect or open up the existing fence that is along that boundary line so.

But that is a lovely sidewalk.

It's a

great sidewalk. Yeah. My guess is that

that'll change but probably not till later.

Uh-huh. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So if that does change later after you put the homes in, that will just go into somebody's backyard and then they become the the referral?

Because the right of way will be adjacent to the church. So Oh. I mean, it would make sense to connect sidewalks but

Yep. Okay. Yeah.

Not a requirement. Yep.

Yeah. The

bridge.

We don't make them connect the sidewalk road.

To then will literally butt up against the churches, and their sidewalk will be integral if I'm remembering right or at least that's the direction you're heading for your preliminary. So he'll I I don't know how they would they'd have to put a keep the fence in place. There is an existing fence, but literally their sidewalk would butt up against the little stub out for the church. So I guess to answer your question, do we require it? I we do require connectivity between trails and things like that, but it where it's a church site, I don't I don't think it would require the I don't think it would be required.

I think at the time the church came in, we suggested that they look at that because we we had a pretty good feel that there would be a road right here next door. And and at the time, you know, this was five years ago when that

was built. Mean, it would be a shame to make people walk the church.

Yeah. Yeah.

And to give them that option. That's unfortunate. Yeah.

You would think it would be a wise word, a word of wisdom to walk the church. In in my

experience, it is a part of the the faith to drive regardless of how

close it is.

This reminds me of the Loch Lemont neighborhood that I think is Saratoga Springs. Yeah. And then our neighborhood that abuts it. The they don't align and so there's this weird jog in the sidewalk right where they come together. Like they didn't plan for them to meet. And so you've got a sidewalk here and a sidewalk here. And then right there, there's one little quick it's stupid. It's really dumb. This one's But

anyway Okay.

Sorry. Sorry. Probably take care of us. About the bridge. You guys are thinking about it?

We we are. Yeah. This was something that was brought up at the recent DRC. So, we are looking into the feasibility of it. This the city staff has been helpful with helping us gather bids. There's still some work to do as far as I mean not only the the bids for the the bridge but the installation and then also the pedestrian trail and landscaping and and other things. So, we're looking at it. I mean, we're we're open to to taking a look at it and we'll work with staff to to yeah, find if that's if that's something that could be implemented.

That'd be great.

Because I do think that access to trails, it does make those homes more enticing. People like

that. A huge Thank

you for looking.

We'll say I do hate the idea of going under half acre lots. Right. I won't necessarily fully agree with the comment that came in from the public there. But this scenario where it does provide an amenity of trail access, I think it's absolutely worth the discussion to see if it makes sense or it could happen because that trail access is valuable. Yeah. For sure. Any other comments, questions, concerns?

Just a reminder again this because this is an administrative item and it does meet the code. Mhmm.

Gotta do it. Gotta do it. I hate it. Is that a

start of a motion?

I was hoping

you would encourage me. Item 3.8 public hearing consideration of Symphony Holmes' request for preliminary subdivision approval of Heritage Meadows, a 13 lot residential development located at 1250 West 800 North. With the motion being that we approve the proposed preliminary subdivision with the findings that it does meet the requirements of Lehi C's development code in regards to subdivision approvals and please include all DRC comments and will also include the recommendation that they strongly consider putting a bridge connection to the trail.

I'll second that. Motion in a second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Item 3.9.

Item 3.9 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a zone change on 0.91 acres located at 498 North 900 East changing the zoning from R1 Flex to R18. Yeah, the motive for this zone change is to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and that's partially why you'll see the city as the applicant on this one. The subdivision met the lot size requirements for both the r18 and r1 flex zone. There was just an issue with the units per acre allowance and there's been a change in the development code. I think it's been the last six to nine months where they would be allowed to have this r one eight zone.

So you've already seen I believe a preliminary subdivision on this as well as the previous zone change. Anyways that's some of the backstory on this. It's really just to ensure compliance with the zoning allowances. So with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions? Yes. So is this the city is bringing

the zoning City, yeah. Decided to not charge.

Not a developer?

No. So, well, the applicant, the Atkinson's have their subdivision approved. They came in for the final subdivision application. We noticed the discrepancy. And so we decided that the city just to cover the process of moving the zone change forward. Okay. Yep.

Yeah. We felt like we should have probably flagged that earlier, but it just got overlooked. Their so their density so all the lot sizes, in fact, the lots are actually quite large. They're well above the 8,000 square foot minimum. But in the R one flex, it says there's a maximum density of 3.25 units per acre. Their density is 3.3 units per acre. That if we go to the R 18, that density cap doesn't apply. It just has the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. And I think there's one of them is 9,000. The other one's 12,000.

The other one's, like, 18,000. So so it's totally compatible with r one. It it's just so close to that density on the R 1 Flex, but we want it to be fully in compliance. So that's where we voluntarily said, look, we probably should have flagged that earlier. So

Right. So the developer builders already they're aware

of this

and they've already presented their plan and it's been approved.

Yeah. I think you saw the preliminary plat last November.

Yeah. They're they just applied for the final subdivision and they have to come back to DRC to resolve some comments. Really won't slow them down.

This would be a cul De Sac. Right?

Three lot subdivision. I can't show it, unfortunately. Oh, they're

actually able to see on the TV. I can see

it again. Yes.

We could probably just pull the packet up from Yeah. There's an existing home. If you remember, the existing home sits really close out to I think it's 900 North. I never

was gonna see. I went to DRC not too

long ago. Just not last yesterday.

It's about two weeks ago.

It's okay.

If you'd like to see it, we can pull it up.

If you if you just zoom in on the map, I can kinda show up.

Well, I I know Bo's over there jumping at the bed because he's

I'm not gonna say it.

Administrative. But it's

Administrative. This is legislative.

Oh. Bad things.

And this one. I don't think it's in this one either. Oh, and there it is. Subdivision. Nice thing is the zoning to the north is also r one eight. So it's consistent with that as well. So there's the zone change. Subdivision layout.

So, yeah, you have one lot with the existing home, a new lot to the south, and then all of the east portion of the property is one big 18,000 square foot lot. So, yeah, if you go down to the table and the yeah. They did their density calculations, and they're just barely over the but we didn't wanna overlook that. We didn't we don't wanna record a plat that is obviously out of compliance based on their tabulations. So

Any other questions for staff?

I'll make a motion if we're ready.

We need to have a public hearing real Sorry.

I would love to hear that. Keep working.

This is a public hearing. We'd like to open the public hearing for M three point zero at this time. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

To make a motion. Item 3.9, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a zone change on 0.91 acres located at 491, I'm sorry, 498 North 900 East changing the zone from R one Flex residential to R one eight residential. I move that we recommend approval. And with the findings that the proposed zone is consistent with the LDR general plan designation. The intent of the previous zone change and subdivision were for three lots. This zone change will allow for the same number of lots and is now in compliance and that is my motion.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. 3.1. Item

3.1 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for development code amendment to chapter five table of uses non residential and chapter 39 to add automobile accessories and installation. This would add separate use in the definition and table obviously. And for the, I guess a couple reasons for why you're seeing this. It's to provide opportunities for smaller, less impactful auto businesses and non residential zones. There was a couple of items that kind of made their way to the City Council that required development agreements over the last few months definitely that kind of fell under this umbrella where they got lumped in with auto service and repair more impactful kind of services versus really minor things like window tinting and decals and things like that wraps.

So anyways that was kind of part of the rationale for why you're seeing this and why it's allowed in most of the non residential zones. And with that I'll turn over the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? I love seeing a change to code that potentially allows for less bureaucracy.

Amendments in the next next little little bit. It's kind of some direction we've getting from the city councils to work on updating some of these things to help smaller businesses. Cool. Yep.

This is a public hearing. We will open the public hearing for item 3.1 at this time. Seeing no one, we will, close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Ready to pass the motion. Item 3.1, public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for development code amendment to chapter five, table of uses nonresidential in chapter 39 to add automobile accessories and installation. The motion being that we recommend approval for the proposed amendment to Lehigh City's development code with the findings that the amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan in its various elements. And I don't believe there were any DRC comments. There were not. That'll be it.

Second that. Motion in

a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Brings of

I I up for the bylaws. I think mean Is it Jeopardy again? Classic think Jeopardy.

You had choose your own adventure. We could do Oh. We could do Jeopardy or PowerPoints.

I wish our I wish our all three of us were here.

I know. I thought about that. Yeah. That was one of the reasons we postponed it. Let's see. My yeah. Mhmm.

I was gonna say planning commission in a couple weeks. It's a little bit shorter tonight than tonight. I think it's five or six items. And then the work session in March we're going over Open Meetings Act and a couple of other like DRCA application process

When is it that we can have all the general amendments? What month is that?

That would be now, but we have not seen any yet. Interesting. Usually, they come in at the end of the month. So March would be where you get to have Alright. Yeah. Adventures.

So the window is still open. February is the window. Okay.

Yeah. That's just the application window. Yeah. Not

the planning commission window. Yeah.

It'd probably be March before you saw them. Bylaws, this is exciting stuff. This is important stuff. Most of you are now I would say you're all seasoned. So I don't know if we need to I I have I'm gonna go through just the some basic summary. I it's always a struggle of, you know, do we sit and read through the entire bylaws? I've tried to just put all the information in a very summarized format, and we can run through it. I do have the jeopardy game. Maybe we do a quick refresher, and then you could play a few rounds.

I think it's okay. Okay. I

mean, unless anybody anybody really

You're having PTSD from

just remember I got a few wrong, but I think we're right.

Well, I did. I updated the questions. So if you want

Oh, it's alright.

Okay. Let's keep going. K. Alright. So So I think the actual bylaws are, what, 10 or 12 pages long. It starts out with there's different articles. This article one is just basically saying you are governed by Utah state statutes. You're also governed by Lehigh City's ordinances and the development code. So those are kinda your operating laws that that are governing all of the activity.

State statutes supersede if there's conflict, right, with city ordinance?

Yeah. Oh, yeah.

State statutes supersedes. Yep. Okay. They're they trump.

Let's see. And then you are also governed by these bylaws that we're gonna review. And then your expectation, it actually says in the bylaws that you should review these periodically, which is why we're doing this now. And just and also stay familiar with any laws or updates to our code or to the state. They call it LEDMA, Land Use Development Management Act. That's where all of the state regulation most of the not all. There are some others that apply, but that's where most of them are at. Okay. So general provisions. All members have equal rights and duties.

So there's not, like, senior members and I mean, there's alternates. But if they fill in as a regular member, they have all the same rights as any other member. There is an expectation of freedom of discussion. So as things come up, you know, we don't ever want anybody to feel like we don't want to hear what they have

to say. And I apologize for a comment earlier.

There you go.

Where you where you felt silenced by us. Apologize. You're shamed to say. Shamed. Shamed. Shamed for talking. Well, yeah, mean

Yeah. When it comes to motions, there can only be one motion at a time for obvious reasons. It'd be really confusing if you had multiple motions on the floor. At any point, if somebody's like, now what is the motion? You have the right to know, and they can restate the motion.

Actions are only at properly noticed meetings with a quorum, and maybe I'll just ask. That'll be your quiz for tonight. How many members is a quorum? Three. Three. Yep. So we can technically if two of you are missing and we don't have any alternates, you could still conduct business. It'd just have to be a unanimous vote. All actions must be lawful for obvious reasons. The bylaws must be publicly available, and so we have them on our website.

If you ever Google Lehigh City Planning Commission, it'll take you to your landing page, and the bylaws are right there. And then your office, it states, is in City Hall. It's the planning division's office. So boring stuff. Let's see. Article two.

We we have office space upstairs. Is that

what you're saying?

That's what I heard.

Good to know.

Sitting in your office right now. This is your temporary office. I

think Kim is not inviting us to

This is come work. Today.

That's not what I'm

getting. Yeah. I feel rejected.

Is that like, oh my office, like, okay.

Feeling rejected is not prohibited. No. Okay. Appointments and resignations are governed by Utah code and city ordinances. We do have a in our municipal code, it outlines that's actually where it talks about how many alternates commission consisting of five members, that type of thing.

You are expected to attend regularly. If you go three consecutive unexcused, I think we've clarified that absences or or three of seven absences could be grounds for removal. We just wanna make sure you're engaged. And I think you're all very good. If you're not gonna be here, you'll send an email to Sherry, Noreen, either one of those just so that they know.

And then the ideal is if you're if you know you're not gonna be here, let us know as early as possible. And now, you know, if you're sick, obviously, that day, you're you're like, I'm I'm not gonna make it. We'll we'll adjust. But the ideal is if we know, you know, at least a week in advance, we can let one of the alternates know so that they we can make sure that they can attend.

I kinda like the cadence that's been

Yeah.

Standardized where Norian sends out that email. Mhmm. People are often reply, oh, I'm not gonna be there this meeting or Yeah. It's everybody's on that email. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Again, that's not necessarily

Yeah.

I have to, but I I like that we've been doing that.

Yeah. But but if you know, you know, your family's planned a vacation or you have a work conference or whatever, just let us know at the earliest point and then we'll flag it and make sure we have it's it is nice to have five members for all items. The mayor notifies the council of vacancies, which we had recently. The mayor appoints replacement with council consent. So okay. Conduct of you as the commission members. You can't represent the applicant. Darn it. I know you guys would all love to do that. If you have a conflict, you need to recuse yourself.

If you and that would be if there's financial or personal interest. And if there's ever any question, just ask legal, and they can give you some advice. But and then if you are gonna recuse yourself, you would announce that. And then, you know, I think our guidance would be to just leave the room so that, you you know, you can't, like face it. Any yeah. Yeah. There's no chance or inference that you've influenced the commission. Yeah. You have to comply with Utah ethics laws, and we're gonna cover the open meetings act at our work session next month. You can't express any bias or prejudgment before a meeting.

You can't express opinions or discuss cases with outside parties. The exception to that is if you have questions, you you just need more information, you can technically, by the bylaws, you can actually talk to each other or to staff. But it but to talk to each other, that might be difficult without expressing bias or prejudice. Prejudice. But if you think you can do that according to bylaws, that's fair game. But, yeah, I know, especially the newer commissioners and but even any of you, if you ever have a question like, what's going on? Or or maybe you catch an error in the staff report before the meeting, call us up. We're always

Those never happen.

Yeah. We're we are your staff. So okay. Officers, duties, staff duties, chair and vice chair elected annually. We all know about that because we just did it. It's a one year term, two consecutive terms, so which is what commissioner Jackson served. If the chairs vacates, whether that's temporarily, if they're not here at a meeting or if they resign, the the vice chair would take over as the chair. The chair presides over meetings, maintains order and decorum, which yeah. Great job. I know we yeah.

It's so it's hard when they start talking at the back of the room. But, yeah, that's exactly what the chair's job is is just to keep everything rained up here so that you don't have sidebar discussions and everything. And then, yeah, recognize speakers. You also manage the agenda flow. If there's any procedures or motions, you're the one that tries to help manage all that. You can delegate duties.

Could could we, like, say you must clear your throat before you give a mic?

I guess you could. Yeah. Like

yeah. Wow. Into the mic. Wow. Into the mic. Yeah. Just just wondering if that was within the purview here.

Feedback. Feedback. Yeah. Yeah. I We like it. Could put that in the bylaws. Yeah. Technically, you can appoint committees. We haven't done that for a long time. But just so you know, that's an option. You can assign the site inspections. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Maybe we need a pizza committee or something. Yeah. The secretary is appointed by the mayor, which right now we have Kate and then others that help gonna So

I'm is record, but this was not noticed. I'm gonna is Right? And this is what we were really looking at tonight. Right? Because it was different than what was noticed.

Yeah.

Does that bring us out of compliance with state law?

I think where it was a concept plan, this is my opinion. I think it was fair game, but I well, I'll let if

only there were a lawyer. Yeah.

That's why I I I always

because those do happen from time to time. Right? And it does and it's almost always concept, usually. Yeah. It's not usually site plan or whatever. Right?

Yeah. I will check with Craig. Okay.

Yeah. But I do often wonder that, like Yeah. Technically this was not noticed, but this is what we're seeing now and this is what we're really noting on.

I feel like it was because that one tonight had the exception. Right? And the two concepts didn't really change the exception request. But if it changed the exception request, I feel like we'd probably

have to take it back.

DRC and renotice and restart.

And if you're ever uncomfortable, like, if this was a total departure from the other concept and you're like, wait a minute, you know, we need more time to think through this, you can always just say, sorry, this is new information. We're we'll table you if you wanna come back to give us time to look at it. So anyways. Alright. No. No. Great. That's the purpose of the discussion here. Let's see. So we covered all those. Application required, these are pretty obvious. Yeah. You can't hear anything without an official application. Planning to it's our job to make sure it's complete. I know sometimes there's questions on how if they're if we're missing.

We we're not perfect. So if we are missing something and you flag that, again, we could table it, have it go back to DRC, whatever we need to do. Okay. Meetings and hearings. Second and fourth are our regular meetings, work sessions. These are all very yeah. Special meetings you could call.

Special meeting.

All meetings are open to public. The city council can hold a closed session, but you can't. So and then, yeah, just try to avoid interruptions during the public hearings or during hearings. We try to always direct everything to the chair so that individual commissioners aren't engaging with the applicant. And I think we're yeah. Again, I I think we do. I do. Yeah. I think we're good. Yeah.

I think we do.

I think the public does not. So, like, when he's talking directly here, do you want how do you want me to handle that? Just say

That's a good point. Yeah.

Honestly, for brevity, I would like you to not answer. I agree.

And I just say

all But I want them to know we will get

to it. But Yeah. We do say

because sometimes it drags on. And and I don't think you give bad answers. That's not what I'm saying. It's just for brevity. I'd rather have them give their peace, and then we address those like we're supposed to. Say we would address that after public comments. Sure. And I'll try to be better at jumping in on that.

Yeah. So, yeah, either you could jump in and say, hey. You need to

keep all comments, like, which you did at one point. But, yeah, or if they're looking at us, we could just say that we need to keep all comments. We could say the same thing. So I almost wondered because think tonight, it was a case of the public not knowing Robert's rules of order. So maybe even starting with that and just reminding people what that is and what that looks like. Because as soon as he understood that, he said, nope. I'm done. And then he went back because he wanted his answers.

Sure. Mhmm. So, yeah, maybe most of the time you get the full audience here at the beginning. So maybe once, yeah, once at the beginning, just say, hey. For the public hearings, we'd like to remind everyone. Yeah. Okay. If you want if you feel it's necessary. And you can use the shot clock. That's that last

which is But there's no prescribed limit. Right? You

could say two minutes. If you have a huge crowd, you could say three. Could say five. It's really kind of

If we have a huge crowd, we wanna go lower. Yeah. Not higher.

Right. Yeah. Use the two minute shot.

We haven't had real big crowds, but that first meeting of the year, we did have a couple of comments that just kept going. Yeah. Right? Yeah. And obviously we wanna hear and we wanna be respectful of their time, but I had a hard time jumping in to try to curtail those.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's almost like if you haven't done it on the first one or Yeah.

Then you yeah.

Yeah. It's hard to rein it back in. So, yeah, maybe that's part of what before the meeting starts, if we and and a lot of times you'll know, like, oh, there's 30 online comments, whatever. So that could be a queue. Okay. We're we better just start out with the clock. Okay. Robert's Rules may be used as a reference. There it's not, like, formal. You know, we don't but we use them as a reference or a guide. If we do go on field trips, which we haven't, we probably should.

We should. I enjoy the field trips.

The one that I keep thinking you guys would probably really enjoy is the sanctuary building. Yeah. When they are ready for occupancy before they open, we should take you through so you can see some of the units.

That will be this year, won't

it? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Can we get a job from the new Civic Center?

Oh, yeah. I have a Absolutely. Should we do that? I wonder if before the work session in March, it only takes fifteen or twenty minutes. We could walk you through that, readjourn here. Does that sound

I would like to. You guys would be with

that. Yeah.

K. Meetings end by 10:30 unless we extend them. Quorum is three votes. Tie votes are generally treated as a denial if if it's too Well,