Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other questions for the applicant? We may have more in a moment, but you can sit down for a moment. Oh, OK. We did a public hearing on this, but we will open the public hearing again and invite anybody here in the public that would like to speak to item 3.1 to come up and speak at this time. Seeing none, we will reclose the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further discussion or a motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody else that would like to speak to this item?

So public hearing, it's not a back and forth. We just listen to you. Thank you. Did you have anything else you wanted to add?

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

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

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

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

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

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

Any other questions, concerns, comments? This is one that I don't love. I don't love it, but it does meet code. Our purview is to make sure that what happens in Lehigh meets the code. They're not asking for a zone change. They're not asking for variance here. I think this is going to be a very difficult lot to develop with the size constraints as far as the width of the lot. and the setbacks that they will have to meet per code. We are not evaluating a building. We do not have a building to evaluate. We are strictly evaluating the subdivision of this lot, which this is the process to do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our connectivity standard doesn't require a pedestrian connection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, I understand. development agreements, and we've seen plenty of them over the years. I understand that they're often ways to help a landowner that wants to develop and also protecting some neighboring rights that the code maybe doesn't give the same protections that we would like to see in certain areas. so I understand I was just that point was question for me like if they're not comfortable with it here are we comfortable with it everywhere else that the code would allow this type of development or do we need to evaluate the buffering requirements of this type of zone everywhere no

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

Understood. Nancy, we do appreciate you being here and your input, though. Or Deborah, I'm sorry. Nancy, Deborah, sorry. Any questions for Deborah while we have her here?

Any other questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. This is a public hearing. We will open the public hearing at this point and invite anybody that would like to speak to this item to come up at this or come up now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like a little bit of a goof. Oops.

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

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

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

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

gets into some legal nuances but i would say if that's how it was recorded we would honor what was on the plot so again that was more hypothetical i was just curious because again we don't run into this very often if ever and um yeah the th5 zone is a technical residential zone although it has no rights to development is that correct yeah it's primarily agricultural yeah right um and that is i mean over the nine years i've been on this commission that is the standard usually of what things when they get annexed when they come in that way there's no necessary water dedication at that time that

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

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

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

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

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

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

I particularly don't love it when we, the city, request exception to our own code. That always makes me feel wonderful. For sure. I feel like, I mean, I'm not an architect or an engineer. I feel like there's an opportunity in two spots that you could add some either real windows or glazing, which would be the parapets on both sides above in that small, narrow area. Again, it does not even need to be real windows. It could be glazing that looks like windows, right? I just feel like there's ways to get creative that doesn't compromise security, but allows the city to say, hey, we meet our own co

And that's where glazing that looks like a window that is not structural, doesn't need to be supported, might be an option, right, to look into something. We've done that before. We've even helped other people to that same standard in the past. I mean, I've been on this commission for nine years. I've seen a few things that we've done. We've seen requests like this. Sometimes it's been granted. But for our own facilities, I don't like to bend our own rules for us. Like, why are we doing that? That totally takes out our needs. I think that's why there is the variance process, too. For sure. Wil

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

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

I totally understand where you're coming from. For me, it's just strictly a ethics. We want to hold ourselves to the standard that we are self-set. We made this standard. We wrote the code. We put it in there. Yes, there is a process for you and anyone to come and ask for a variance. I just hate that we give ourselves a variance. We have a code. Why would we design outside of our own code? Or why would we allow the design to even go outside of our own code? I think that's just because this is a glorified storage system. I don't care if it's a metal air hanger. I don't care. Whatever. We have c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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