Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. We will call the work session of the city planning commission to order at 431 PM on August 5th, 2026. In council. And we just have. Discussion about what we have on the. Okay.

For the agenda. Does anybody have any questions about the stuff that's on the agenda today? Does that make sense? I know that. A couple people called me saying, wait, not from the commission, but other people that received the agenda called and said, I thought you guys did the detached accessory dwelling unit stuff the other week, and now it's on again. I was like, well, it's different. This is different. All we're doing is matching up those definitions. I have a series of extremely boring slides to show you all. I'm excited about each of those ones. I'm going to go think really fast. But yeah, it's just definitely.

I went to the strike house. It's pretty strange. It's just kind of like, you know, wherever this is.

It almost could have been done as a replace. There's like two places where it references parts of the code that had to be changed to match up to. Other than that, it's all just the only difference is whether it's singular or plural. That's about it. Um, I'm glad that makes sense. We'll get that done and then. We'll probably wind up putting both of those same. We'll have them both on the same council agenda for that. So that 1 is passed. We'll, we'll make sure it goes on the same nights. They're all done at the same time. That makes sense. The other things, the subdivisions none of that stuff. No questions. All right. Well, then we'll go ahead.

On the staff report, I wrote. I said there were two entrances to the Johnson Farms. There are three. I put a slide in and I highlighted them. So, you know, full disclosure for when you get there and you're like, in a second.

I noticed that in the slides. When I was doing the slides, I thought about your staff report. We've already docked your pay.

I know.

So it's all good.

Darn.

So. Um, yeah, no problem. I'll remember them. Okay. So, other than that, we just wanted to maybe give you a couple of updates to things. The. I think the 1st thing I did was okay. I did want to update you on this. The general plan, as you all know, may be aware. We've been working on a general plan update. We recently redid the timeline, took a look at things, and decided that if we work really hard at it over the next few months, we can get done on a timeline like this. This was presented to the council the other day as a possible timeline for this. It seemed to be amenable. So we're going to move forward with this. During August and September and October, we're going to do some additional drafting. We have some draft chapters done. We have others that need to be done. In another slide, I'll make sure this makes some sense. We don't have as much time as it would take to draft a really complicated in depth plan in 3 months, but with. What the goals were for this plan as it was presented to us as a project we can do. So, during August, September, October, we're going to be drafting during September. We'll take a moment of work session to provide you as a commission in the council kind of an update as to how things are going and. And maybe give you some of the high concepts from it in the draft. And then the full draft will be available for review at the beginning of November. We'll send it out for the Council, the Planning Commission, and different staff members. Public works and folks like that often want to read sections and weigh in a little bit, make sure we're not far afield of things that they're interested in. So, but it'll just be available for council commission and staff. At that point in November, then we'll start to make edits to it during November and December. And by the time we get to the holidays, we'll make that draft available. To the public, so that they know it's coming up for hearings that have been. And they have a chance to see it and be informed for comments that they want to make at the hearings. We're kind of tentatively planning that they might go to different hearings in both. Uh, bodies at the planning commission, and then when you've made a recommendation out of city council, it might take a couple of meetings of the council. Um, we think we can be done by in February with the general plan update. It'll be a pretty basic 1. it won't be. Um, 2 involved, these were the goals as we start the project a while ago. We just have not been able to focus time on it. Keep the general plan very general. We want it to be very high level. Don't want a lot of detail. We want to align the general plan that we have with the city's areas of focus and goals. And those are, those are part of, we'll talk about those in a second. And we wanted to focus the plan on identifying objectives and strategies rather than providing. So general plan's point is not to provide the code or the things that you will do. It's to provide what your objectives are. It's to give you guidance for what those then. General. Yeah, the general plan. Exactly. Often times. Bog down and say, well, what will happen? How many duplexes will we allow? How many feet do you have to be from this? That's not what's going to be in the plan. It should there be duplexes, not even that. It's should we consider duplexes? Should we pick on duplexes? Pick a thing. It doesn't matter. Animal husbandry and single families, pick a thing. It doesn't matter what it is. Should that be considered? What do we need to know? What do we not know? Do we know what we want to do? These are the kinds of things we need to know. So it'll be focused on those kinds of objectives and strategies. Remember that the idea that I always use and come back to is connectivity, the idea of connecting streets and pedestrians and vehicles and utilities and things. That's a goal that belongs to the general plan. Saying connectivity is a good thing, deciding whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and some instances of where it might be better or worse than other times, that's the general plan kind of thing. The length that you'll allow for blocks, that's not what's in the general plan. That's a zoning decision that you make in a specific area. In this area, to promote connectivity, we want to limit the block length to 350 feet, something like that. We're not going to be getting into that kind of thing. We're going to be talking about activity broadly. The different areas of focus and goals that were identified for us at the beginning of this project were safe and livable neighborhoods. to promote approaches for homeowner occupancy, to balance the mix of housing options, to preserve the character of neighborhoods, and to plan for development of the heart of downtown. The heart of downtown has been adopted now. Thriving in balanced business environments to protect strong economic foundations, to create opportunities for small businesses, to explore opportunities for incubator spaces and business development programs, and to foster connections with Utah Valley University to create an environment of commercial innovation. And then dependable infrastructure to support timely updates to the master transportation plan, to support efforts for connection of trails, to adopt an active transportation master plan. That's being worked on right now and will be ready by the end of the year. And then continued efforts for responsible water use. We actually adopted the water chapter recently as well. Plans and efforts that would be identified that we should have would be appendices or would be referenced by the general plan, would be the heart of downtown, that ATP, that active transportation plan, a housing study. We early on decided we think we need a comprehensive housing study. The general plan will call for that probably and maybe set up parameters of how we would seek grants for that, funding for that, and what it ought to tell us or what specific questions we want to ask. An area plan for the southwest, there's a neighborhood plan It's not very detailed. It could be beefed up. Corridor plans for Geneva Road, State Street, and North Area. The station area plans, the one big station area plan, and our other station area plans are bird neighborhood plans. They haven't been updated in a long time, and there's a lot of good information in those. And again, Geneva Road and State Street and University Parkway, those are corridor plans that ought to be considered. Any questions about that timeline? So it'll be pretty broad. We'll be doing a lot of drafting work to bring versions of that draft language and things to you in some work meetings, along with going to the city council for those work meetings, so that everyone's kind of aware of what's going on. It's not a complete surprise to you as a full draft in November.

Okay. Any questions about the general plan?

Okay.

All right. The other thing we wanted to do for the work session tonight, since we've got a little time, Was to show you some of the visuals that we, as you're aware, the detached, not just detached, but the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, that 22611 post section. You recommended to the council, the council reviewed it in a work session last week. Long week. I can't tell if it was last week or two weeks ago, but it was something like that. Maybe it was last week. Um, we had some visuals that emitted these, um, thank you. Nice that would show kind of based on what you proposed or what you forwarded to the, to the council what that would look like on just random lots that met the qualifications. So, all of these lots are 11,000 square feet or larger. This is the area in the backyard that would be available based on setbacks, about 2,600 square feet. And this lot would qualify for a 1,000-square-foot ADU on what we've set forward. Those are your setbacks, 25 feet. These are all sort of six foot from the home setbacks instead of 10. That's my fault. I didn't communicate that very clearly. But, again, you can kind of see it would meet 10 as well. That's a 20-foot setback that's required from the house there. So you can see kind of the space that would take up. This was all very kind of visually very instructive to me. Just as a side note, they all take up more space than I imagined they would. Just the size of the square feet when we were doing it, saying 50, 1,000, 1,200. It's a lot bigger in that little area in the back. This is a corner, but let's look at some more. We have others too.

Just curious. Yeah. On that photo, there's like a shed at the back of that lot. Yes. And so that's already there. It is allowed because it's not...

No one's living in it.

No. And that doesn't have to be a certain distance from the datu.

No. Right. It has to be. So it doesn't. It's not required. It would have to be separated from here six feet. Okay. Just under our regular codes. That's not a part of it. Standard accessory structure. Okay. Because this is a dwelling and no accessory structure can be closed in six feet to a dwelling.

But like a tough shed is allowed to be on the property line?

Well, they have to drain on your own property and they shouldn't be in an easement. This one, I would hope that this little shed got a permit and they got a waiver for their easements that are probably along here. They may not have. You might be looking at. An infraction that's a fairly common infraction. People don't think they'd... I don't think anyone does it maliciously. They don't realize they would need a permit to put a tough shit in their backyard. We get a lot of that. But yeah, technically you could go right to your property, right? It's just you should have to do a bunch of things to do that. It's not likely they did all of that. I don't know how they're trading that on their own. But it never rains, anyway.

It's never ever going to rain again.

This is another one. This lot is 11,325 square feet, so it qualifies for that state-mandated 11,000-square-foot rule. This is an 850-square-foot unit that they would qualify for. You see kind of the same ratio there, backyard area to it. So it takes up...

But that box on the side available, it could be bigger.

Well, this couldn't because 850 is the biggest size that we would allow. Under what you proposed to the council, the size that the ADU could be is tied to the size of the loft. Exactly. Between 11,000 and 13,900, between 11,000 and 14,000, you get 850 square feet. So it would have to be a bigger lot to get a bigger unit. Even though this whole space, yeah, you could put it anywhere in. I think what Emma's trying to say with this graphic is this could be, it could be here, it could be over here. This whole 2,000 square feet was available to use based on the setbacks. And remember what we proposed in setbacks, what got forwarded was 10 feet from any interior property line and 25 feet from any street.

Sorry, Marty.

Yeah, go ahead.

Marty forgot this. It's 850 in the footprint. That wouldn't count a loft square footage space.

The loft space wouldn't count against it, but it can't be under the code. It would be more than 20% of the floor space. But, yeah, no second stories. And we'll get to height and placement in a minute. The council had some ideas about height and about setbacks that we're exploring now. I want to make sure you guys are aware of those. This is another lot. This is 13,500 square feet. So they get, because they broke the 13,000 square foot mark, they get 1,000 square feet of ADU under the code that was proposed, 10 feet off. And again, it takes up that kind of area of the backyard. Here's another cul-de-sac lot. These should... feasibly be the ones that are the most difficult to place them on should probably be these cults at once. It's hard to hard to see where they would have a challenge doing it. Emma's mentioned to me the other day, it was the ones that she randomly pulled, it worked for her.

Yeah, I didn't find any lots. I was kind of looking for lots where it would be hard to have them, just to get examples of all different things. I didn't find any lots under, or over 11,000 square feet that couldn't accommodate the maximum allowed size ADU.

Based on?

Look at every single one.

Randomly sampling them, Emma's style.

Yeah.

To me, the takeaway, and this is as good a moment as any to bring this up. To me, the takeaway from that is that this 10 foot that we did as kind of a baseline and says that would be like the bare minimum that you would want to do pretty much is very much very liberal. It's not hard. If you increase that setback, you're still going to have plenty of people qualified. Because almost everybody qualifies with that. If your only setback is 10 feet from interiors, hard to place one. Hard to make it available. She also showed on these. I should have put this out on the others. She showed where you could park two more cars. Those are parking spaces. Hey, guys. So those are what she's showing there are parked. So, again, not just that you can place the building here, but you can park it.

So, a little off topic, but you're still germane to this. If you have someone that's intending to put one up that does not fall where it's supposed to. What is the city's remediation? I mean, what do you do? If they're outside the lines.

Okay. So it's like they couldn't meet the setbacks. So they couldn't, given the area of their lot, their large enough lot, their 11,000 square feet, but given our setbacks and the required distances from other things, they couldn't put one in. Right. So like if this one wasn't quite made. The first thing they would do is shrink it from the allowed 850 is your maximum allowed. You can always go down smaller. And some of the more adorable ones we see are pretty small. They're 350 square feet. They're 600 square feet. Those are very small. They're one bedroom units or studio units. The 800 is going to easily accommodate. 800, 850 is going to easily accommodate two bedrooms.

Nice.

So I guess my question is, because I have a situation in my neighborhood where Someone who's convinced turning a single family residential into. It's smack in the middle of my completely single person.

I think he's doing.

He says he's doing that. And so I guess my question is, in case like this, someone comes to you and says, this is what I want to do. You say, no. But they proceed with what they want to do, knowing it's illegal. What's the city's recourse?

Glad you asked. It's really fun. So, Erin can tell me wherever I get this wrong, and Becca's done a lot of this, too. So, somebody builds a building without permission. First of all, we wouldn't issue a permit on it. We'd have to go full... Renegade and say, I'm going to build it anyway, and when we find out about it, and we always do, because everyone in the world's got neighbors, right? We'll hear about it. They built this with no permits and they'll come in and we'll call them contact them and say, it looks like you built this building with no permits. So our 1st. Fix is always to say you need a permit. So we do what's called a retroactive permit. However. It has to meet codes. So when they get to the zoning part of the retroactive, they can find, I'll get a permit for it. So give me a permit for the building I've already built. We're going to make them take out sections of wall. And so we can see the wiring. We can see how they did it. But the first thing that's going to happen is, or Emma or Grace or me or someone's going to review the site plan and go, this doesn't qualify for an accessory dwelling unit. So zoning can't sign off. So they cannot get. The next step they would take would be to say, well, how can I make it qualify? Can I chop half of it down? Can I whatever? And maybe they can't. Maybe they take half of it off and can make it comply. But they don't want to do that.

Right.

So their choice is to say, OK, I'm not going to do the permit. And I'm not going to do the retroactive permit because I won't modify my building. If they say that eventually, we'll give them another letter saying, you have this many days to comply. You build this building with no permit. Eventually, if you don't comply, the city winds up. Probably filing what's called a certificate of non compliance on the property. And what happens is. It varies. It depends on the person. Some people get the certificate of noncompliance. Depending on their personality type, they're destroyed by that or they're like, I don't give a crap what you file on my property until they go to refinance it or somebody wants to buy it and it turns up in their title report and you cannot, it doesn't move. That certificate of noncompliance does not get removed until they have Fine with the city's regulations, so that's ultimately our final recourse. Nobody goes in with a wrecking ball, takes it down. Generally speaking, because attorneys generally don't like us to go on. It's. It's worth. Valuable sets, or we have not done that.

Can I know of there? There has been at least 1 time where we filed a district court case and reached the contact. heavy equipment on the City Council. It's still heavy-handed. Let's not do that. So we stopped. This was probably 15, 20 years ago.

Non-compliance is pretty effective. People think they don't care.

When they can't sell it and they can't finance it.

Juniors getting married and you want to take out an equity loan to help pay for the wedding or get them started or whatever. And you haven't thought about it. In a few years, you haven't thought about the noncompliance. And all of a sudden, we're part of your lives again.

That's why everyone hates this.

Do you ever just red-tag something?

Oh, yeah. Red-tags happen all the time. If it was partially built, we'd red-tag it early on. With no permit. And then they'd still vote, have to come in and get a permit retroactively. And the same things happen. And we said, well, you're going to have to modify your plan. Well, does the red tag just for the dwelling itself, or does it affect the primary residence as well? Primary residence as well. On the property.

Exactly. It's not just one lot. Yeah.

we would file noncompliance on the property that would turn up. So that's a good question.

I wasn't quite sure how that happened.

Yeah, that's how it works.

I have one more question on this. So based on that, as we look at, is our maximum too small?

Is our maximum too small? I don't think so. I didn't see codes that had any maximums that were bigger. Okay, because we could fit bigger. Oh, you could, but again, you're looking at... I'm not saying we should. I'm just saying. You could fit more.

We could fit bigger.

The question starts to become, and the reason that we suggested. What's the livability of the lot? Right. How much of the character of the seat? We talked about it a little bit at the time. It's been a few weeks. But to me, the value proposition of accessory dwelling units is that they don't change the basic nature of the single family neighborhood. So the bigger they get and the more bedrooms they have in them, The more they're like a second home on the lot, as opposed to an accessory dwelling unit.

Um, so the question I have is can delivery. Uh, does that count in the base or. Like a bay window.

It's a fantastic question. We did not deal with it at all.

Because I know, like, we built a home in a place that had a. score footage limitation, but cantilever bays did not count in the footprint.

Right. And a lot of times they don't. For our code, for houses, for primary dwellings, cantilevers are allowed, projections like that are allowed Pertinences such as those are allowed up to a certain. You get 2 feet into a setback, but they don't have any do with the. Part of the setback, so you can project into a setback 2 feet or.

I think we looked at that we're in another item recovered from this.

They wouldn't tell in the footage to me because we didn't define it. So by defaulting to just basics, yeah, if that bay window extends another and gives you another 15 square feet, that's part of your scoring.

You can't walk out. Let's say I put a window seat in them. Yeah.

Is it still square footage or is it still square footage? And so since we wrote this as maximum square feet as opposed to whatever, and I didn't write any exceptions for them for the setbacks either, so it would probably affect your setbacks because we didn't specifically – accept them like we do with primary dwellings. Since we didn't treat them, I'd go to baseline and say, yeah, they would count.

Yes. When we see them on house plans, we count them towards your square footage. They can overhang, like cantilevers can, but even then we limit them. You can only have two such projections for your entire property, two feet nine or ten feet wide.

Oh, in legs too. So they're limited. That's perfect. Thank you. You can tell who reviews most of the house. I don't I'm not reviewing. I'm sorry. Very often. I miss it.

It's not a good question about this particular 1. 1 of the things we talked a lot about is that the unit kind of needs to be hidden behind the main house.

Yeah.

And so I get that. It's a cul-de-sac. I get the odd shape of the property. But yes, they could technically put it there, but does that run against, other than the fact that we haven't set necessarily the setbacks that way. But it becomes at that point between me.

Yeah.

So I'm just pointing that out.

That's a good question. That's a good point. We didn't have the time to. No, no. Yeah, we didn't. I lament that we've not had the time to really get into this more in a better way. Because the commission clearly, like, there's more for us to consider. And I think where we are because of the October deadline is we're going to be at the council again in a work session, like 72 hours, I think. So 12 working hours from here or something is what I'm going to say. We're going to be talking about this again because the council has lots of questions, and these are great questions. I don't think our code is going to be, whenever we pass, it's not going to be perfect, and we're going to need to make adjustments because we had to come at it too fast from the deadlines of things. We probably, yeah.

But I feel like because it's clear to the back of the property, it doesn't have the visual crowding. Right. And so I think in this case.

Spread more evenly.

Yeah. I think if you're doing a turn in that cul-de-sac, you're hardly going to notice that.

Oh, I mean, there are a lot of people in the cul-de-sac that don't know what to do with that awkward corner. Yeah. Well, there you go. Get rent. Right. Get rent from it. But I just I'm bringing it up just as part of the policy discussion just for thinking through. And kind of this is a good discussion for us coming back and seeing the unintended consequences. Right. Yeah. mean this is clearly in city council's court they can do whatever they want at this point we've made a recommendation but you know just to think when we're looking at future things that sometimes we think okay we've got this this seems pretty good and we're like oh look how much of that lot is now covered but it's a different it's different that's that's really what we were we were lacking but um you know we're still gonna be talking about the council to meet the october deadline we need to pass something

My guess was always from the get-go that we would probably find things wrong with it and need to tweak and make adjustments. And we'll be open to that.

Is fencing required? I'm looking at the placement of that. And I can guarantee they're going to put the front entry on that top part, which means they're staring straight into their neighbor's yard.

Right there.

Yeah.

Fencing is not required between houses. I mean, it might be in some UDs or something, but generally speaking, it's not.

You could have a window on that left side have the same problem with it.

These are all valid points, and that's why this is such a hard discussion.

We also talked about trying to keep the windows from the backside. The backside here looks like it's a field, maybe. We'll just pretend it's a giant field behind it. But the front-facing windows would go straight to that next neighbor.

And fencing, the height of fencing could come into it, right? Because right now it's limited to a certain height. Will people start to now come to the city and say, I should be able to get a higher fence because they're, I mean, they might, they might.

And that's why I think it was important that we have these two single stories for, for sure, because they're in those, you know, when you're two stories here, there's that X or 25 feet or 30 feet or whatever. That's one thing right here. Yeah. That would be, I don't think there's any case to be made for two story ADUs.

Um,

Personally, I shouldn't inject my personal opinion into it that much, but I don't they need to be single stories. Council's discussion did revolve around height. We talked about different ways to the height and some of them. Made some sense, so I'm going to use this slide just as an example. Because this setback here, well, this is close and you're seeing like the kind of the visual, well, I can see straight into here and you can see straight over here. There's a fence, but whatever. This is quite a large, this is a side setback. So this is a 10 foot requirement. Let's say in this zone, I don't know what zone it is, but let's say it's 10 feet for ease of everything. This is a 10 foot required side yard setback to this property line. Okay, this can come within 10 feet of this property line, and we require them to be 20 feet from anybody else's dwelling. Whoops, sorry. Well, let's say these guys want to come to their 10 feet and they want to add on. Now, they would be able to, no problem. They could do it, and they'd still be 20 feet from this ADU with a 10-foot requirement, and they've got 10 feet. Well, let's say there's this 8-feet building. It's an eight foot side yard. So they want to build to within eight feet of their side yard. And we say, well, no, because then you'll be closer than and they want to build back here or something. Well, you'll be too close to this ADU. So you can't build those other two feet.

Interesting.

That seems unfair. And there could be much more egregious versions of this, you can imagine. Right. So one of the council's thoughts was that we could explore making a setback. multi-tiered. In other words, we might have a setback requirement here, like 10 feet or 15 feet or whatever that is. And we might have a setback requirement that is from this home, any dwelling to another dwelling. And we also might have a setback requirement for this detached ADU from anybody else's potential setback of a certain distance. So you don't have to worry about just where their homes are. You have to worry about where they could be based on their setback requirements. So you look at all those adjacent lots and say, We, you could technically only be 10 feet from here, but you're going to need to be 12 because they could come with an 8.

Could you in that case? Could you say. All right, they applied for the 20 setback case by case neighbor wants to go closer.

You could write an exception.

Let them do it because they know that that structure is already there.

Right, because it's pre-existing, right? You could write an exception for pre-existing.

And by the way, if that's a two-story home, the main home's windows are much closer to that lot than the ADU is. Yeah, I don't think there's a…

It's an example. Because like I say, there's a million versions of this, right? Emma's only been able to pull so many. She's eventually going to map the entire city and the possibilities of all 20,000 potential lots. What were there, 5,800 potential lots?

You can do that. If you can give me some investing parameters so that I know where, based on what you find out, inside information.

It may violate your ethics a little bit there. Yeah, exactly. Sorry.

It's informing.

The other.

In the meantime, it's okay, though.

This one is a little different, gives you a little different kind of a picture of things. 1,000 square feet, because this is a larger lot, 14,000, just over that 14,000 square foot line. You get 1,000 square feet under our allowance for that ADU. And again, it looks much larger than I imagined that comparison to be to these homes. But there it is. And six feet from the home, 10 feet meeting their setbacks. Sorry. it brings to question, or it's a good moment to mention another thing the council talked about in the work session, were the heights. So we had proposed, get it wrong, I don't want to get it wrong, 20 feet for pitched roof structures and 14 feet for flat roof structures. The question was raised, what if those were What if we reduced those heights? Based on some of the photographs that we're looking at of ADUs, most of them are quite short. They're not real tall because they're single stories. So if we kept the heights a little shorter, especially at base distances, and then allowed them to increase in grades as you went further from those property lines and got less obtrusive. So even if the base is not terrible, it's probably not going to harm anybody because the ADUs, if we're keeping them smaller and smaller, truly subjective not subjective subordinate to that main house then the height probably wouldn't be that big an issue so we're exploring that too to see what those would look like um So we could do a match and then a one-to-one. It's like a baseline of being 10 feet in height at your base distance and then just a one-to-one increase up to that level of 14 and up to that level of 20. If you can get 20, if you can increase to further off, then you get to 20.

Does the orientation of your pitch change?

Oh, good question.

So like on this one, if the pitch is going from property line to height as opposed to...

If the pitch is running like this.

If the... If it's going this way, then that high point is much closer to the property line. When we were doing heights before, we had this kind of tented version of how that looked. The envelope, yeah.

This would be kind of a soft core version of the envelope, just a straight grating height. And the pitch, that's a good point. The direction of the pitch does kind of have an impact.

Because the high point, based on where it is, could be...

Although, I almost view it just not to be...

Contrary, I don't care.

Contrary, but I'll kind of view it differently. Like to me, the reason that we allow the gable ends to protrude is because the gable has less mass. So the pitch facing you, while it's closer to you, it's got half that mass because of the 45 degree angle as opposed to the long version of it facing you, which you can't really see a difference in. That's true. Well, I can't even because I have crappy depth perception. That's why I'm on the bus all the time. But, yeah, it's a good question. We didn't really treat that in as complicated a way as we did with the primary dwelling heights. We could. It felt maybe unnecessary, but the more I'm looking at these in visual format, that's... Not bad. I at least want to look at the soft-rated version saying your base height is much lower, and then it gets bigger as you get further out. That incentivizes people to keep them smaller, which I think is not a bad goal to keep them subordinate, truly subordinate.

So the other problem that you have if you're trying to keep the – keep it cohesive with the existing structure, and you change the roof pitch, it looks funny.

Yeah, you're right.

So do you want it to be similar in roof pitch as long as it's under high?

Well, and the smaller the unit is, the less that's going to matter. If it's a big unit like this, if the ratio is like this to this, then the difference in roof pitch is a really simple flat roof here is going to look funny with this. But if it were half this size, you wouldn't notice it. And that's kind of where we're wondering about the sizes too. We might look at reducing those because these are much bigger than I kind of imagined.

And 850 on that lot would feel less.

Less than that. It would feel less intrusive than this. Like it would be about that size, but it would still be about that size. 850 will be accommodates almost anybody.

But I think the homeowner is going to naturally do that. Because if the homeowner looks at that, they're going to be like, oh my gosh, it's taking up my whole yard. So I think there'll be some natural changes. Some, I'd say, yeah, depending on you.

Some, I was going to say.

Or some.

I'd like to introduce several people. Because the pickleball is no longer a fad, they can just take past space. That's true. That's all I am.

I'm not going to lose this. People, 20, 25 years, people have not stopped surprising the crap out of me with the stuff they want to do.

Oh, I know.

It's amazing. Your name, for example.

It's crazy sometimes. But yeah, looking at the ratio, I think what we want to do is look at the ratio of the ratio between the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling. So I'm not sure if we want to go all the way to saying that you can't build something. The problem is if you say you can't build something that's more than X percent of your house, we already have the 50 percent for those smaller homes. And some of these are approaching that at a thousand feet. If we try to tie it too much as a ratio, will people add on to their homes and things? And so, you know, we inevitably get the, well, I'm doing a big addition, so I want to do this bigger than you. And then the addition doesn't happen, et cetera. So we have to just... Look at the sizes overall and see if this is acceptable. These were a little. I don't want to say shocking. I don't want to be alarmist, but they were bigger than we kind of imagined them. And they were bigger than I think the council imagined. Have they by not by raise of hands? Because I don't think you're allowed to do that. Even in this public meeting, we'll just steer clear of it. And just for your sake, just ask yourself silently. Are these do these look bigger as a part of the lot than you imagined them to be when we were talking about those sizes? They did to me.

I think it's eye-opening. I think that would have been helpful.

I wish we would have had them.

They didn't to me. I mean, I visualized what I wanted. Especially if you're a long arm and the space in the back, it's going to be tight and it's going to be like this.

It's going to be tough.

See these, yeah, the cul-de-sac clots are Or an anomaly in the way that they look.

Yeah. And some of these, even some of these tighter ones like this, this is a good straight old, this is a 12,000, this is a quarter acre long, a little bigger than a quarter acre, 12,000 square feet, 850 square foot unit in the back. It just, to me, takes up more of the back than I kind of imagined it would. I'm not horrified by it or anything, but I am surprised by it. I would have imagined, I would have drawn it like this. I thought it was probably 150 square feet. Uh, but then, you know, I, I just, I don't visualize that stuff as well. Again, showing the parking spaces that works. Got a 3rd car in the garage, so under the rules that already exist for our accessory apartments, you can use that 3rd car garage and you can.

Space there in defense of that particular 1. You know, from the, from the curb, you.

You won't see it at all.

You never know. And basically, the homeowner loses backyard space, and that's it.

Well, yes and no. The other part of it is you don't receive from the curb. Homeowner loses backyard space, but these folks, the impact is here and here, more so than... and we have the 20 foot rule and everything that's only 20 feet or in the past it was all of this space so as a concept it's obviously going into this area there's nothing we could do with that state has mandated that we do something so we wind up with something this one is closer than 10 feet on the here as i'm looking at to the left side to the neighbor

They've got a building right there.

Oh, a building, but not a dwell. But if this were an ADU, if you had put an ADU in right here, this would be too close. And we'd have to say you've got to free it.

But if they built this, then they wouldn't be able to change that to an ADU.

Right. And I think that's why I brought it up.

They could convert that to an ADU. But under our rules, this one would have to be 10 feet off of it. So they'd have to do more than convert it there.

Gotcha.

So that's why that... It has to have a setback, and that's the reason why it's separated. But all we've mandated, I guess I'll finish up with this and I'll stop talking. Sorry. All we've mandated really with the setbacks is that all the buildings, whether it's primary or accessory, are going to be 20 feet from each other, from lot to lot. Not on the same lot, but from lot to lot.

Can somebody do a basement in these? One story.

So a basement is considered... A basement would be square footage and you wouldn't be lucky.

I think there was a brief discussion of how you could make that basement underneath the surface dwelling and how would that really affect it all.

No bunkers.

No bunkers, yes.

No bunkers assumption. But we've mandated 20 feet between units. So the question of the council was, is that really enough? Shouldn't there be more space than that in between? So I think it's at least likely, just so all of you are aware, it's at least likely that distance is going to, that 10 feet I think might increase. And it might increase a little bit on its own, but it might decrease by tying other setbacks to it from other people's setback lines, et cetera. And all of that next week with the council to tune in. And we'll keep you all posted as it keeps moving toward adoption during September.

Be a great suggestion for homeowners to get a visual.

Yeah.

Measure it out so that you can visually see that space is.

Yeah.

And they might go, oh, that takes up my whole backyard.

Yeah.

Because, right, you just don't visually.

I didn't get it. I didn't visualize it right at all.

Except for some.

Some people do. Yeah, that's the last one. Trying to think if I must, I think it was done a few more since then, but I only have these slides. She's going to do all 5,000 questions. Any other questions about this. Thanks guys.

Unless there's any other questions, I think we'll, I guess I kind of have a question related to that. It's more of a technical thing. That's fine. Are we bringing the text of a new updated code in front of the planning commission? Yes. I guess in that case, I'm wondering if our last item tonight is related to that. Should we just do that code change and then we don't have to have two separate things?

Do you mean... Oh, do you mean so? Like the stuff that's on tonight that we're changing? We can do that. The planning commission is going to make a recommendation tonight. What I kind of imagined was that. Sorry, you weren't here when we went through that. And I mentioned that we were doing it and it's been related to that. And what we would do is just if they make a recommendation tonight, we'll just put both of those public hearings on the same council meeting and say, you're adopting this. You're adopting this for. sister dwelling units, and these are definition changes that need to be done, too. We could put it in, I think.

Yeah, I was going to say, I mean, whatever's easiest, I guess, but if we just put them all in the same code change, then we'd only have to do the one public hearing. We wouldn't have to address it tonight.

Is that okay?

That would work.

I don't know if this is coming back to the Planning Commission, though. Well, would you just include that with the new text that you're bringing? The text is the commission already recommended and forwarded a recommendation on this. We just didn't have these visuals of what they recommended.

Oh, I see. So you're not bringing the text back?

No, I'm not bringing the text back. I apologize.

I misunderstood.

They didn't get the benefit of seeing these visuals while we were considering it. We got them ready for the council's work session, and I was like, they ought to see these. So we brought them back to them. That's all we're doing. It was just illustrative. Sorry, I misunderstood.

No, we need to forward this recommendation that you guys can combine it.

We'll put them both on the same council agenda. Okay. Sorry, that's...

Nothing else? Oh, do we want to talk about it?

We have a whole plan.

Yeah, it was really great this week. We did fantastic. Okay.

Thanks, guys.

Okay, we will adjourn to our regular meeting at 514.

Make sure dinners.

Hey, we're ready to call the Orem City Planning Commission to order at 531 p.m. on August 5th, 2026 and in the Orem City Council Chambers and we'll begin with an invocation by Carl Randall.

Our Father in heaven, we are grateful for the opportunity we have to participate in the civic affairs of the city of Orem. We're grateful for the opportunity we have as citizens and the privileges that are granted us. We pray that thy guidance and direction will be here with us this evening as we consider matters that we'll be able to use wisdom and prudence in the decisions that we make. Again, we're grateful for all that we enjoy, and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. We will begin with item three, which is our consent agenda item with item 3.1, which is our minutes from the July 15th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Was there any concerns about them or? I do have one question about them and I totally forgot about this in the pre-meeting. So I am going to ask a question before we move to motion. Some of them only had who first and not who seconded. does that matter for should we delay or is that okay for the meeting minutes um i i i would certainly prefer that we have the information in terms of who first and who seconded yeah okay then i think on that note we probably want to move to continue i'm like my table was stuck in my head i'm like it's the wrong word yeah we'll continue it yeah so on item our consent agenda if we could get a motion to continue that item i move the orem city planning commission continue the request for further consideration

To August 19th.

To the next, just say the next meeting. Next meeting. Second. Second. Okay. Thank you, Susan. So Carl moved and Susan seconded that we continue our consent agenda item to the next meeting. Micah for voting way down there.

I agree. Hey.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that item will be continued. Then we'll begin with item four, which is 4.1. It's a preliminary plat for PH Tennis Center, plat A, located generally at 92 East, 800 North. Jared?

Thank you. This is a preliminary plat. As you said, it combines three parcels of land, these existing parcels here. into one single parcel in order to establish public utility easements and prepare the property for site planning that's on the agenda tonight as well. It establishes PUEs for power here and here, and then there's a water line easement here that needs to be there, and then it will, again, have the regular utility easements around and combine them all into one developable lot. That is the basic... purpose of tonight's preliminary subdivision to prepare for a site plan that's also on your agenda. Any questions?

Any questions for the city? Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward or if you want to wait until your next item too, that's up to you. If you'd like to come forward and... Josh Hart.

I'm the owner's representative. Any questions on this one?

Any questions for the applicant? Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We might add the next item, so... Okay. It's just a... Can I make a motion?

Yeah. Let's do. I move that the Planning Commission approve the PH Tennis Center Plot A, located at 92 East 800 North in the C2 Zone.

Okay.

Do you have a second? Okay. Susan moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the preliminary plot for PH Tennis Center Plot A. jeff hi hi hi hi hi okay item 4.1 passes and that is approved we'll move on to item 4.2 which is the site plan for ph tennis center located generally at 92 east 800 north jared thank you so this is the as you said the ph tennis center um this is the current property you can see that these are the three parcels that were

being combined by that preliminary plat. It is adjacent to some single-family residential here. The proposal is to tear down older buildings in the front, and that would create parking. And this is the proposed building that would go there that provides office suite space, some storage area, an indoor tennis court, and an outdoor pickleball court. This is the site plan you can see to the side here. Indoor tennis, the pickleball court, and then the proposed office suites and storage building, and then a lot of parking and landscaping out on the front on 800 North. This was, again, just some information about the C2 zoning and the setbacks that are required. It exceeds all the setbacks by quite a bit. The 10 feet, 44 feet, you can see it's a long way from the street on 400 North. or 800 North, I'm sorry. Again, square footage of the building. It's a 12,217 square foot building. There are 11,689 square feet of landscaping proposed here. It would require 33 parking stalls. They're providing 45 parking stalls. We should not see a parking issue here. This is, again, the elevations of the building, but you saw that rendering in the first place. Heights were looked at very carefully because this is close to this residential property line. It does meet our height requirements. And that is what I have in the presentation. This did go to a neighborhood meeting because of its adjacency to residential. It went through the DRC, passed on July 13th. The main concerns, again, were lighting for the pickleball court, noise and dust during construction at the neighborhood meeting, and then those kinds of issues are addressed by down-directed lighting on the building, and there's no outdoor lighting proposed for the other court, as I understand it. I could be wrong about that. I'll have to ask. Any questions for staff?

Okay. Looks like no questions for staff at this time. The applicant would like to come forward again. Anything you'd like to add or...

No, I think you made my job easy. Yeah, it was just a pleasure working with the staff and, you know, we tried to be thoughtfully or thoughtful rather in designing it with the residential roof and keeping that as low as we could. And so, yeah, so far so good. So we're excited to move the project forward. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them.

Just to clarify the question that Jared said about the pickleball court, are there external lightings for the pickleball court or not?

Yeah, so that is a great question. I've not confirmed that with ownership. The assumption would be we would be seeking an approval to probably do that if there is the possibility. It's worth noting that there is, I believe, a seven foot high concrete fence, a wall that is existing right now that separates us from the residential neighbors to the east. We propose installing a similar wall at the south. Now, I'm not sure in terms of approvals moving forward with those lights and doing a study on that and the impact of those lights would be. But yeah, I believe that if there's a potential for that, we would be seeking that.

Thank you. Carl?

Yeah, so I'm assuming that there are probably regulations governing lights on a court and time that they have to be turned off by and things of that nature. So I'm assuming that, I don't know if it's 10 o'clock or 11 or whatever that is, but I'm assuming the lights would have to come off at a certain time based on ordinances. Is that correct?

Because it's commercial zoning, we would set that time. And you could, as a commission, set that time. Say they have to be off by 10 p.m. or 9 p.m. or whatever that would be. But you're right again, Carl, about the code requirements are that no light pollution or glare comes to the adjacent property. So they'd have to be lower lights at this kind of proximity and down-directed. But if they were shorter lights, 10 or 12-foot pole with down-directed hoods, and they went off at an early hour, that wouldn't be a problem. We could handle all that during the building permit process. We do a site plan like this during building permit, too. So we can enforce those kinds of restrictions if you place them on it.

Any other? Susan?

So, the packet that we received on, I don't know if we need to put, anyway, I see the pickleball court in two different locations. On one of them, and I think it was the brochure that was shown to the neighbors, the pickleball court is on the south side of the tennis court. And here it's right up adjacent to the fence line, which I believe that neighbor who's adjacent to that was at the meeting, but I don't think he realized it would be right against his fence line. I guess I just want to ask where the pickleball court's actually going to be. And then maybe let's have some discussion at some point about hours. Because I know how pickleballers get. They get really excited about playing and get a little loud. And so I think having some hour restrictions on that would be beneficial.

Yeah, thank you, Susan. Let me respond to those questions. So the reason why that had to be relocated was out of necessity for us, cost implications. With that power easement, we realized that the building had to come down or to the south further. to avoid getting into that three-phase power line there and relocating it. And so, yeah, so that shifted it. I conducted the neighborhood meeting. It was a great meeting. I think there were four or five that showed. I can go back and I'm happy to reach out to that neighbor and have a discussion about it, inform them that the court has moved over and then work with the council and the neighbors to come up with something reasonable. That, I believe, yeah, we can completely conform to what we want to collectively decide in terms of hours and lights and so forth.

Perfect. Thank you. Kind of off of that question, just how much intensive use is the expectation for this? Is this for private lessons? Is this for tournaments? What kind of level is the expectation? Because I think that informs that question.

For sure. Yeah, great question. I mean, this is a private facility, actually, with regard to the tennis court and the pickleball court. The owners are like the partners at Ion Solar. They're building this for some executive office expansion and really just private use. So we don't anticipate any commercial use coming out of this, necessarily any like you mentioned, you know, running a business through... those recreational activities or anything like that. So I, my guess is that it would be fairly low, but I can confirm that.

Jeff.

This is really just kind of for us. I think then if that's the case, I think it would behoove us to really put that in the court of the city, uh, In terms of lighting and such, because it's private use, it would seem to be something like if I were to build a pickleball court on my property, you know what I mean? It seems because it's not open. There's one court, one pickleball court. It's not like that facility in the parkway that's different in nature than this, it seems. My comment.

Yeah. So are you thinking that we should just not worry about putting any limits on it?

We should be careful about trying to prescribe... limits based on the nature of the facility, I think it is better handled with staff.

And just to bring it back, just not to be contrarian here, but just to think it through, is just if we put limits on it, then as the staff reviews, those limits will be included in that. If we don't, it's just what city code is. And if we're fine with city code, we're fine with city code. I'm just saying, just for clarity of what we're discussing.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

I'll let you know if there's anything else.

Okay.

Okay. Thanks. So, I mean, I guess the question is, is there any limits we want to place on this or if we're just okay with city code covering it?

Since it's not a commercial, I mean, they're not using this particular thing as a commercial venture. They're going to charge people money to use it. I'm fine with city code.

And do we know what city code is?

In that event, and in that case, city code would say no zero-foot candles at the property line. We'll ask them to demonstrate that in the building permit process. We can do that. It wouldn't prescribe necessarily. What it would not prescribe is what time the lights would have to go off or there couldn't be lights on. I don't even know if they're planning on having lights. They might just figure it's lighted enough from wall packs on the building. that are going to be down directed as well. But if the light can't bleed across property lines, they're not going to be able to go very tall to show zero foot candles at property line. So city code will keep light from being a problem into the neighbor's yard, but it won't control the hours that they're on. So just so you know that.

So I guess that comes back to the question. Are we interested in controlling hours or are we?

I don't think so. No.

I don't know the answer to that question. What's our scope in terms of those neighbors? Or do we need to be watching out for there? It sounds like they didn't have any concerns. So, I mean, I don't know if the pickleball court moving, what is that, 20 feet, 40 feet to one direction? That's not going to make that big of a difference.

One clarification, I'm assuming there's parking lights anyway that are going to be on 24-7. Is that correct?

Yeah, if you want to come forward and answer that question.

I think, as Jared mentioned, obviously we haven't been through the study with the electrical engineer and looked at those requirements out there, but I don't believe that we do. I don't believe that we intended to have any light poles in the parking lot. I think we're getting coverage through.

I can tell you that, actually, because in the staff report, yes. The lighting on the site is entirely provided right now by the wall packs on the building.

Okay.

So the plan right now doesn't show any lights in the parking lot.

But the wall packs will be on –

They're usually on all the time.

So it's not like there's not going to be light on the property anyway.

They'll probably, given the nature of this building and the pitches of the roofline and things, they'll probably look like the lights that are on newer residential homes that have lights all over them, that kind of thing. So that's what you're going to see. But again, we check for candles and property lights as part of building permits.

And in that respect, it's like any other commercial property that we have that has their lights on continuously. Right.

Yeah, and I would just add, it was a great discussion in that neighborhood meeting. We looked a couple of neighbors in the eyes and told them that we would be communicative and work well with them. And, you know, that comment about dust and, you know, that's obviously one that I've got to tackle with our general contractor once we get to that stage. But there will be outreach. And, yeah, I would all have conversations with them, you know, anything that falls outside of what, you know, is within the guidelines and the ordinances. Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I think, I mean, from my perspective, I think we're fine with city code on this one. I don't think there's a particular outstanding need that would arise it to a point that. Okay, if there's no further discussion or anything else anyone would say, then we can go to motion.

I move that the Planning Commission approve the PH Tennis Center site plan located at 92 East, 800 North in the C2 zone.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. Carl moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the site plan for the PH Tennis Center. Micah?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. The site plan is approved. We'll move on to item 4.3, which is a preliminary plat for Johnson Farms Plat A, located generally at 1700 South Geneva Road.

Thank you. This is probably familiar to you. We did a zone change on this property not long ago, early in the year. This is the triangular piece of property that's created by the new roads that UDOT is putting in here in this area. You can see those there. This is a single lot subdivision. It will create one lot to be developed as the Johnson Farms, shops at Johnson Farms. It is zone C2 as of this year. It will establish PUEs and boundary lines that will match the property that's been deeded between UDOT and different owners. I'll show you that in the next slide. These are the rights of way that will be put in, eventually creating this lot. We've asked them to do the subdivision part of this to make sure that all matches up correctly. UDOT still has some some flexibility on, on Geneva road and where that's going to end up. You'll see that in the site plan, but basically this lot will stay the same and only what would change would be the right of way disposition. So this is the final subdivision or the, sorry, the preliminary subdivision that would be necessary to create a lot that can be developed as the shops at Johnson farms. See a pattern in tonight's order of things. Same kind of deal. Any questions about the Johnson farms subdivision plat a Carl.

So, Chair is the only person that was here when you discussed that. Oh, really? Yes.

Oh, I might be.

You know, in January, because I don't think any of us were. You're right. Yeah, you're right. All of us except for me. Yeah.

It's too late. I've already said that you all already know. So let me go back a couple of slides. So this was all part of it. Oops.

That's a very good question.

This was all part of the Johnson Farms, and it was zoned Open Space 5. It was zoned Open Space 5. A zone change application was made to turn this portion into C2 because of the roads that were going to be put in. This is the Lakeview Parkway. And Geneva Road runs currently here. It's going to cut back up to Geneva Road, and this part of Geneva Road will be not as important anymore. But it does create this odd triangle. The piece that was left is not large enough to be still in the – it's only 4.5 acres. OS5 is a five-acre zone. The piece that was left over or would be left over wouldn't be large enough for that. It wasn't really residentially desirable because of the big roads that are going to be on the other sides of it carrying a lot of traffic. So the petition was made to reason to see to the planning commission did recommend for it ultimately. And the city council did ultimately approve it with a development agreement that limits the uses. And we'll talk about this in the site plan too, that limits the uses and eliminates some of them. Like I can't remember what they are right off the top of my head, but it limited the kinds of uses that could be done on the property in deference to the sort of semi-rural residential neighborhoods to the east. Does that make sense? And now you all know all about it.

And some of the specifics we will talk about probably with the site plan because there's some oddities to this.

Just so you know, that took a lot longer in the public process. That was not that quick.

There was a lot of discussion about it. So that's the preliminary plot. Any questions? Does the applicant want to say anything on this item? Yeah. Do we have any questions? Nope. Okay. So then if we have no further discussion or questions, we can go to motion.

I move that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Johnson Farms Plat A located at 1738 South Geneva in the C2 zone.

Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Susan moved and Mike has seconded that we approve the preliminary plat for Johnson Farms Plat A. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Take that. Preliminary plat is approved. We'll move on to item 4.4, which is the site plan for the shops at Johnson Farms, located generally at 1700 South Geneva Road.

Thank you. So this shape should now be familiar to you. This is the single lot, the future Lakeview Parkway UDOT is going to build. Geneva Road cut off back up to Geneva Road. And this portion becomes less important. I don't want to say obsolete. That's not necessarily true. It's not obsolete in the sense that it's going to provide access still to this property. UDOT will not allow future access from these new roads. So all of the access to this parcel will be from Geneva Road, this extension here. There are three points of access. It's four and a half acres. These five buildings are proposed. They'll provide 46,300 square feet. That's a little bit of a typo there. It's not quite that large. Take half of the west side of Orem to do that. So 46,300 square feet. There's a 185 parking stalls required, provided 198 with this plan. It's been in the works for some time, solving some problems about the rights-of-way line and the different utilities and issues like that. But at this point, it's meeting the standards for zoning, for access, for landscaping, for parking. These are the access points you can see on Geneva Road. Again, just pointing out that we won't be allowed to give it access from the future Lakeview Parkway and that connection back up to Geneva Road. These are the buildings. This was proposed as part of the... I mentioned that there's a development agreement that goes with this zone change that happened for C2. It included a concept version of this plan. It still matches that and meets those requirements. And it included this conceptual building. It's designed to look... Farmy, I'm looking for a word that I don't have. Rustic, rural, in some nature. These are flex spaces that could be used for lots of different things. The C2 zone allows a host of different uses. They did, by development agreement, preclude a few uses. I think automobile uses, car sales and car repairs and things won't be allowed here. But different kinds of retail and small shop, things like that will be available to this property. This is the landscaping plan. You can see on Geneva Road, we have not included the trees in the park strip because there's some questions still with what UDOT will do with the park strip there and how they'll construct it. So we've done the trees that would be required in the park strip and the developers agreed to just move them onto the private landscaping. So we'll still have them. They just will be on the inside of that park strip instead. Those will all be bonded for, et cetera, just like we normally would. If we're able to put them in the park strip, we'll move them back out to the park strip as the development moves forward. But for now, they're planned on the private property. Otherwise, the landscaping meets the requirements. The setbacks are all good for the building. Again, there's no accesses on the other portions, just on Geneva Road. And do you have any questions for us about the shops at Johnson Farms?

Any questions for Seth? Would you like to come forward at this point? I'll have the applicant come forward.

Thank you. My name is Paul Washburn. representing the project tonight. As was mentioned before, I think we brought this to the first meeting in February for the zone change and the development agreement. We had actually hoped that we'd be back here in front of you sometime in March or April, but still a lot of discussion what's going on between UDOT and Orem City on finishing the parkway, and that's delayed us quite a bit. So anyway, we're anxious to get moving forward. Anyway, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

OK. Any questions regarding the site plan for the applicant? Susan?

I feel like I always have a question.

I just have the inquisitive look on your face. I just want to make sure. It's just flex industrial.

And so that obviously can have a variety of uses. Some are more office in nature and some are more industrial in nature.

No, it's actually flex commercial. Right.

But the design, the way you have with the overhead doors, that type of thing, that kind of opens it up.

I don't think we expect to have any industrial uses in here. Okay. There will be some commercial. I mean, plumbers and I've got a bug control business. Cars and all that stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. There won't be any kind of automotive in there at all.

Okay.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Okay. I guess the last thing is this really conforms really tightly with the concept plan that was originally approved, and we're anxious to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do we have any other questions, thoughts? Yeah, Carl.

I mean, I think we attached the development. I saw what the limitations were on it in the in the packet. So hopefully everybody had a chance to look at that. And I think I was fine with that development agreement.

Yeah. They seem in conformity with it. I mean, yeah.

Yeah. Did I see, I don't think I saw anything that shows a unit breakdown within the number of units, the number, do we need to be aware of that before we approve?

They're flex spaces. So that could change as they they'll build them as shells and then for tenants to approve them.

At this point, we don't know what there's going to be. We've had a lot of inquiries since we've had the sign on the property, but we're trying to design this so people can get what they need to have. And I expect probably as small as 1,000 square feet, maybe as large as 5,000 or 6,000 feet. Thank you.

But more to your point, probably the parking ratio that we've required is overall for the buildings and done based on the kind of mezzanine space they're showing and typical units and warehouse space.

Okay. There aren't any further questions or comments. We can move to motion. Motion.

I move that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for the shops at Johnson Farms located at 1738 South Geneva in the C2 zone.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. Carl moved and Micah seconded that we approve the site plan for the shops at Johnson Farms. Micah?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Site plan is approved. Thank you very much. And then we will go on to item 4.5, which is a preliminary plat for Valor Homes Plat A, located generally at 1301 West, 400 South. Okay.

I was geared up to talk about my text amendment thing. I forgot about Valor Homes, just for the record. So here we go. This is a preliminary plat based on a site plan that has been approved for a while. One of the conditions of the site plan was that they would record this plat to take it from being just a parcel of a lot of record, what we call a lot of record. and to a subdivision so we could record easements and make sure that we got everything right on this. So they've had some challenges getting the plat ready, but we're finally ready to bring it to you as a commission for preliminary review. As we said, the site has already been approved. based on the condition of this plat. The main thing to know about it is that this, the thing that's been holding it up is this easement that needed to be vacated so we could record the plat and they could move forward. They knew that was going to be able to happen. It just took a long time to get it done. Once that was secured, we were able to bring the preliminary to you. The DRC voted on this on Monday, July 20th to forward it to you all. And that's what we have for you.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, any questions for... Valor's a home builder, by the way. I should have mentioned that. Valor's a home builder. This is just their office for their home building operation.

Any questions for Steph? And since the applicant is not here, we are limited to asking Jared what he may or may not know about this.

Good luck with that.

Okay. It's pretty straightforward. Basically, it was approved. It's all fine, except for they needed to, it hadn't been recorded before.

We hadn't recorded it because of that easement issue. So that was all ready to go.

So, okay. Is there, I mean, I don't think there's any concern on this one. So if we want to move to motion.

I move that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plot for Valor Homes, plot A, located at 1301 West 400 South in the M2 zone. Okay.

Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Susan moved to Mike a second. Do we approve the preliminary plot for Valor Homes? Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay. That preliminary plot is approved.

Thank you.

Okay. Now we can move on to item 4.5, excuse me, 5.1, which is a public hearing for a text amendment aligning definitions in chapters 19, 21, and 22 with proposed section 22-6-11 accessory dwelling units.

Thank you. So I'm going to go through these relatively quickly. We had a full copy of it attached to your staff report. This is basically just so the public is aware. This is an add-on to what the Planning Commission reviewed a couple of weeks ago and recommended to the Council. which is proposed 22611, which creates a new chapter for accessory dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units. What that did also, though, was redefine accessory apartments and call them accessory dwelling units, specifically attached accessory dwelling units. But in having to make these new definitions, legal staff pointed out that we had several places in code that referred to accessory apartments. that we're going to become confusing because of that change in definitions. So what this purports to do is to align those definitions with the proposal that you've sent forward to council. It does it in three chapters. 19 is traffic. And in almost all of these cases, all that's happened is the term accessory apartment or accessory apartments has been swapped for accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling units. In most cases, in definition sections or what's prohibited and not prohibited. In traffic... The traffic section contains a definition for dwellings, and that dwellings definition contains a reference to accessory dwelling units now instead of accessory apartments. In Chapter 21, that's water. It also contains definitions. It has two different definitions that reference accessory apartments. Well, it has the definition for accessory apartments that we changed to dwelling units, and then we included the definition that we use for accessory dwelling units. because they didn't actually really truly define accessory apartment in their definition of accessory apartment. They just related it to the main unit. So we included the definition. And then in multiple family residence, it swaps out the term accessory apartments for accessory dwelling units that are excluded from multiple family residences. Chapter 21 also has a connection requirement section that references accessory apartments. And so we've swapped that out for dwelling unit in both those cases, whether they can use a common meter or a separate meter. Chapter 22 is the zoning code. The zoning code has the most references. Definitions include accessory apartment. We've changed that to be dwelling unit. And again, use the single family dwelling, which is subordinate to the primary dwelling on the same letter parcels. We did have to make a small adjustment there. And then again, with dwelling single family, it references accessory apartments. Change that note there. Also in zoning, we have definitions for accessory. That's a duplicate slide, isn't it? I never accidentally duplicate slides. This one I've gotten wrong, I'm sorry. So 2268, make sure I get this right for the record, sorry. 2268 are the zone development standards. Item F in 2268 states that a single family, only one single family dwelling can be constructed per lot in a residential zone. And then it goes on to reference that only one single family shall occupy an accessory apartment. And we've changed that statement to accessory dwelling unit. Sorry, I must have skipped that somehow there. 2269 are residential zones and regulations governing particular uses, and there are references to accessory apartments here that we have changed to accessory dwelling units, specifically with reference to home daycare services and whether they can be operated from them. Spoiler alert, they cannot. Residential preschools also cannot be operated from an accessory dwelling unit. Chapter 22 zoning also includes references in our PRD section, the planned residential developments. Planned residential developments are not allowed to have accessory apartments. And that's the same in this case. We've just changed it to accessory dwelling units. In reference to accessory apartments in the PD zones, the planned development zones, there are several early on that are residential in nature and they contain allowances or prohibitions on accessory dwelling units. And that's what's happening here in the PD16 zone. In the PD17 zone, we had to change that reference as well. The PD19 zone, same kind of reference. This one's interesting because it calls itself a PRD. It's just for fun. This is the fun part of the meeting. Welcome to it. This is a PD zone that calls itself a PRD, which is interesting, I think anyway. There you go. There's two of those. Next one also. This one also refers to itself as a PRD. There was a moment in time, I guess, that we felt like that was swanky to do or something. But there you go. So just simple references. Chapter 22 has the most references to accessory apartments. It's the urban village PD zone. Not allowed in town or allowed in townhomes in certain ways. Not allowed in original construction. These are just changes of the term accessory apartment to accessory dwelling unit. In the, also in the urban village zone, more references that had to be changed because it keeps referencing them in referencing that term with respect to parking and size and other things like that. So we haven't changed any of the substance. I guess my point is we haven't changed any of the substance of these PD zones and as they refer to access requirements, just the term. In the, again, the last 10 of all the 10, there are 10 ultimately that get referred to. Now, the final one, we actually just have to refer to the new code because it refers to this section of 2269I, which is where we used to have accessory apartments. Now that's replaced by 22611, and this is the proper reference, C7A through C. And finally, the PD43 zone, Auburn Meadows, has that reference. We've changed that. And then overlay zones, the affordable senior housing, the ASH overlay zone, does not allow you to have an accessory apartment and now an accessory dwelling unit as part of an ASH overlay unit. And supplementary regulations refer to home occupation requirements. There you go. We had to change that reference from accessory apartment to dwelling unit. And the last reference that needs to be changed is in Appendix A, where we have the big matrix of all the different zones and what's allowed in all the zones. So all of them reference 2269. I don't know why the F was there. So it's good that we had to change this because that made no sense at all. It should have just referenced 2269 completely, but it didn't. These are allowed as according to 22.611. So it just refers you to all those to see if you're allowed to have an accessory dwelling unit or accessory apartment in your particular zone, and it'll matter how big your lot is, et cetera. So it just refers to 22.611. And that's the last change that we need to make to make sure they're all defined the same way. Any questions? I did include one picture in all of those slides because I knew you would be tired of seeing all the typing. So I chose the picture of the most adorable of the detached accessory coordinates. That's my popular vote.

I agree. It is most adorable. Go ahead, Carl.

I think I was awake at the first part of this. Okay. There are some places where you struck out the word accessory and it wasn't in the back part, so it just says dwelling unit. Was that intentional?

A couple of places I've probably struck the whole word accessory apartment and then replaced it with accessory dwelling unit. In most cases, I left the accessory.

There are some places where you struck out accessory apartment and just put dwelling unit. Without.

I should. That was early on in the slides. Let me go back.

Yeah.

I think you're probably seeing this one.

No, it was not that one. If I did, I didn't need to.

It's here, probably here. Yeah, right there. This one. Yeah, you know what? I'm missing the accessory. That should be there.

Yeah, there were just a couple places. You were awake. That's embarrassing.

I'll fix that in the redline draft. Thank you.

We're going to watch him as he fixes it.

Yeah.

And four as well. Good catch.

Bring you a chocolate bar the next planning commission.

I just had some European chocolate delivered to my house today. My bar has been set here.

Fair enough.

Well, yeah. It was a part of my wife and mine. I didn't dare take it out of the house.

Any other questions?

No questions. Okay. It's a pretty straightforward legal update to the code, but it is a public hearing. So we do have to open for public comment. Anyway, so we will go ahead and open for public comments. Please come forward, state your name, limit your comments to three minutes, and we will make that available for whoever wants to come forward. And since nobody is here, we will close the public comment and continue on. So any questions, concerns, comments? Okay. Then motion. Excuse me.

I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed amendments to Orem City Code Chapters 19, 21, and 22 aligning definitions with proposed Section 22-26-11 Accessory Dwelling Units.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, Susan moved and Micah seconded that we approve the text amendment. Okay. Go to vote. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay. The text amendment not approved. Yeah. Wow. I just botched that one. We will forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for item 5.1, and that will be on some future planning. Some future date. Future city council.

Hopefully during September would be the deadline.

Yes. Okay. Since Gary's not here, I assume there's nothing. Unless you want to impersonate Gary right now.

I think the things that I would have wanted to update you on, we talked about in the pre-meeting, so I think we're okay.

Excellent. All right. Then if there's no further business, we will take a motion to adjourn.

Second the motion? Well, we need it first. Oh.

You can do the first.

Okay. I motion that we adjourn. What is the... I second. Okay.

Jeff moved, and Carl seconded that we adjourn. Micah?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. We're adjourned at 6.30.