Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's bad. Getting all the tea. They got a lot of stuff. You know what? You probably could get them on

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Chair Edwards, present. Vice Chair Lupton here. Commissioner Tippetsz is excused. Commissioner Anderson here. Commissioner Ericson here. Commissioner Snow here. Commissioner Brocky here. Thank you. Um, did everyone have an opportunity to read the minutes? Any adjustments, changes? Looked good.

Yep. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 22nd, 2026. I second it. All in favor?

Thank you. Uh the first item on the agenda today uh is Austin Cooper representing JDH Development requests reszone approval for parcels located at 52 30 and 24 West Center Street and 7710 South State Street from transit oriented development zone to transit oriented development overlay zone. Information regarding the proposed regulation, prohibitions, and permitted uses that the property will be subject to if the reszone is adopted can be found in Midbell City Code 17-7-17. Elizabeth is presenting.

Thank you. Okay, so you will see in the packet that we provided a lot of materials and the applicant provided a lot more than we probably need at this stage, but wanted to get ahead of some stuff. So, I've just pulled excer excerpts to include in my presentation tonight. Um, so the reszone is for four parcels that comprise just under three and a half acres between State and Maple and then front on Center Street. Um, here is an image of their concept plan and overview. They've highlighted, you know, their residential commercial space and some other stuff. As this is a reszone request, staff has not looked at or evaluated parking, site plan, anything like that. This is just merely would this zoning be appropriate on this parcel knowing that if it gets changed that it could be developed under the TOD as it exists in our ordinance today. So one thing I did want to point out though that applies to these pieces that doesn't apply to some other pieces that are todo that to that might be reszoned to is it is it specifically in a section of the code that requires a mixeduse element. So it does require pieces in this area in which those four parcels fall that they have to provide 65% of their street frontage as specifically retail or restaurant space. So just be aware that that would apply specifically to this project area where that might not be in other cases

if approved. If approved. Thank you.

Um here is a picture of their concept site plan for two buildings. some parking, commercial amenity space around um and some units, some one, two, and three bedrooms. Again, none of this has been evaluated at the staff level, but just as an idea of what could be put on this property for reszone criteria, the code does outline findings, one of which the council ultimately will need to find. We find that this proposal meets criteria number three, that the land in its area has changed enough. the two encourage redevelopment. Um there has been some increased intensity in land uses and just a general shift towards higher density and mixed use development in the area. Additionally, the general plan calls out opportunity areas and this one sits in the middle state street opportunity area. There are eight goals that are outlined. In our analysis, we found that they met four of those eight goals um by facilitating higher density and mixeduse development, leveraging the site's proximity to the center street tracks station right there. Um concentration near um specific nodes that they called out right on center street and then also the redevelopment of underutilized parcels into mixeduse residential. I've included a recommended motion. Um, and unless you have any questions for me, the applicant's here. So,

anyone have questions for staff? Yes. Does that in Is that the parcel with the where Fajita Grill is? No, that is further north. Okay. Yeah. So, it's down where the Safeway uh the corner where like there used to be a school district and that's kind of where that food truck area is kind of operating, but yeah, right there. I think the grill is a little bit further north. Correct. Right. But it's just on state there. But I mean it's right next to this, right? Correct. Yeah. Yes. Correct. Outside of the parcel. So would we get rid of the the GA old gas station loan center will be gone or this includes that parcel? Okay. I don't think it's the property you're thinking,

but not the Fajita Grill. Correct. Fajita Grill. So behind Fajita Grill, it doesn't include that area. No. Centennial Plaza. Yeah. No. No. That's unfortunate. But it's the bowling alley. The old junction and then down. Correct. Yeah. The old Safeway. Yep. But not the garage. Yeah. Darn it. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear. Yes, sir. Legal. Would you please opine?

So, this is a legislative decision. So, it's actually a decision that ultimately comes down to the city council to make. The planning commission just gives their recommendation. Uh, as I I believe Elizabeth discussed a little bit, uh, what's in front of you today is simply just the zone change. The concept plan that kind of is included in the packet is really not up for your consideration today. It's only the actual zone change and whether you think that that goes along with, you know, the general plan and what Midvil needs.

I should also mention, sorry, that we did receive one public comment which I emailed out to you yesterday. Um, and I did speak to someone at the counter who was generally in favor, but didn't ever submit any written comments, but other than that, we didn't receive public comment. Um, Liz, what's the what's the differences between the two zones? Just a brief synopsis. What? Yes. What are we losing? What are we gaining?

Biggest difference is going to be much higher density is allowed in the overlay zone. So, the TOD will allow for 25 units to the acre. The overlay allows for up to 85 units. There are incentives that would allow for much much taller buildings, but also that mixeduse requirement would be there where they could just develop under tod some town homes kind of residential other kind of like other projects we've seen. But I would say the density and maybe the mixed use component for this project specifically are the big differentiators. Do we have a zoning map that would show how many parcels would be affected in the zoning change? Yes. Sorry, I'm trying to get my packet to upload.

That's okay. So, these four just they are those ones that front on center and then stretch through. They're outlined in blue. Sorry, kind of thin from state to Maple Street. So, just those four lots would be in the to the rest of it would stay in to Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Liz. Thanks. Good question. Okay. At this time, I'd like to or would the applicant like to address. I'm Alan Argyle. I'm representing JDH de Development. Austin couldn't be here tonight. Uh we just appreciate, you know, you guys taking a look at this and we're here if you have any questions. Anyone questions for the applicant? No, not at this time. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. At this time, I'd like to open uh this agenda item up to the public for comment. If anyone has items they would comment here, now is the time. I have questions. Sure. Uh, if you'd approach and state your name. Um, hi Jim Abraham. I'm just a neighbor. Um, uh, JDH stands for something. I didn't look it up. So, John D. Hat. And then you're the construction company. We're a partner with him. Yes. So, who owns the property that's there now? JDH development. Okay.

And so the the ultimate plans are for this two building retail apartment setting. So yeah, that's not the item before us today. They could like it could go with that. That could be something else as well. Uh but the item that's before the commission is just the reason um not about site plans, what could or could not be there. And so the the people that are in the there is some offices there now. They're just leasing from you guys then. Okay. All right. That was it then. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Seeing there's no other comment, I move that we close the public hearing.

Second. All in favor? Oh, I was there. Okay. All right. Public comment is closed. Um, wait. Did we do an all in favor? We we kind of did. Let's do all in favor one more time. All in favor? I I comments, questions. I I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement here. The only thing before us today is the reason. Um there was much more in the packet. Uh I'm very excited to see this corner developed into something current into something current and

usable. Yes. I'm I'm very happy to see progress here. Um and I and I feel like if it takes a reszone, then it takes a reason. The nice thing is if they you know we pass this it opens for other developments to come in that area because it's I mean State Street we all know it's getting I mean that's been that that abandoned Safeway. I was a kid when I was shopping there so that's been a minute or two. So, it'd be nice to have something better.

And I will say as far as the um the overlay part, if we're going to go higher density, I would almost want it to be on that corner. I think that it's better served there. Well, you're you're further away from homes, residential, single dwelling. If you're going that way, which you could go down State Street easily then and fulfill a need there. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's kind of Yeah. So, those are my thoughts.

One thing I wanted to bring up is since there's 65% street frontage for there's going to be business um well, under this overlay, under the overlay, it would be um commercial, restaurants or retail. So, is there any office buildings that could be part of that 65%? Okay. So, it has to be just retail restaurants. Um, I own a um residential or a a commercial unit in a mixeduse building on uh State Street and 21st South.

Very similar to what um could potentially go there. And we only have a we have like a few parking spots in the front of the street. And what I've noticed is that um my staff and all the other uh retail places staff um are competing with parking for their customers as well as residents and guests and things like that. And I don't think that there's anything in the to that states that you have to have parking for those things like for staff

and things like that. So, if we did approve this, because there's no street parking on Center Street or Main Street, I'm not sure where those I think we're relying on foot traffic alone for that parcel. Yeah. Like I I So, I think both sections of code here do have uh parking requirements, but um it doesn't get as granular as what would be required um for staff and otherwise. Correct. It's just parkings parking per like square footage or per unit. Correct. Uh parking requirements in both to and to do zones um are established, but they aren't as granular as to call out what would be for employee and what would not. Um it's

correct. Yeah. For retail and restaurant specifically, our standards are based on their net leasable area with with no other parking applied. So no net change, right? Yeah. But just so you're aware, on that particular parcel, there's no street parking. So correct. Yeah, those that 65% would essentially be relying on foot traffic alone or the parking that like would be shar potentially whatever if a developer decides to do that. But if we pass this if we pass this zoning whatever is written now is what they're overrides the previous

well it's just whatever is written in the todo is what they will be to. I mean, would they be held against whatever was in code at the time of that plan uh coming to the city for approval? Correct.

Yeah. Maybe if I can explain that a little bit. Um Utah has a vesting rule like many states do. Vesting means the rules apply to your project at a certain point in time. So when you in in this case first we do zoning then come the projects project approvals if zoning is approved at some later point in time and for the project itself the vesting happens when we have the full application and fees paid. So they are not vesting in um the provisions of this zone at this point in time with the submittal of an application for zone change. They will vest um for their project at some future point in time when we get uh a complete site plan submitt and the fees for that will have been paid.

Gotcha. But parking will be taken into account even if there's not street parking. There will be parking allocated for the retail spaces. This proposal has nothing. We're just talking about the zone change. I get that. But what I'm saying is the you know the codes per zone potentially could could make it so they wouldn't need to provide because this parcel has no street parking. It would be essentially what they want want to provide if they do want to provide something. But they're it's not stating that they have to provide anything right at this point. At this point, no. Yeah, we are not saying what they do or don't. It totally is going to be dependent on what would be developed there. Correct. Yeah. I just was letting everyone know how

Yeah. how it affects the the retail spaces. Yeah. Because you know, people are going to try to park there. But that is a reason that there's we've outlined um not having offices in situations like this on the street level because they don't bring the pedestrian traffic that restaurants or retail would. And so that's something that we've considered in previous meetings. Gotcha. Okay. There pros and cons that we

anything else people would add pros cons? I move that we recommend approval of the reszone request for parcels located at 5230 and 24 West Center Street and 7710 South State Street from the transit oriented development zone to the transit oriented development overlay zone consistent with the findings included in the staff report. Second. Have a roll call vote, please. Chair Edwards, yes. Vice Chair Litkkey, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Ericson, yes. Commissioner Snow, yes. The motion passes. Thank you. You can continue to work with staff.

Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda, Midville City initiated zoning code tax amendment modifying setback exceptions in various sections of title 17 based on changes in the Utah state code from HB476 in the 2024 general session. Jonathan is presenting.

Thanks, Chair Edwards. Um, so this is based on some state code changes two years ago, House Bill 476. Um, this is related specifically to residential rear setback limitations. Um, they adopted what is what they defined as a allowable feature, which could be a landing or walkout porch or a window well in the rear setback areas of residential properties. Um this is uh the excerpt from the state code that I also included in this in the staff report for you guys um in the packet. Um I can go in as much detail as you would like. Um it pretty much limits stuff to a maximum of 32 ft in size um for a landing or walkout porch. Um, and this is specific to the area that is, so if somebody builds up to their um, in our residential zones, there's a 15 ft um, rear setback. Um, if they build right up to that, um, this enables them to have these exceptions that they'd be granted by the state code. Obviously, if they build to, you know, 25 or 20, they can build whatever they want up to the the 15 as long as it meets development standards. Um, this just enables them to have stuff for egress and ingress from the rear of a building. Um, the proposed changes are we're altering a few of our definitions, adding some new ones. Um, there's changes to the development standard sections to every zone except the mixeduse Bingham Junction and Jordan Bluff zones. Um, I just did an abbreviated list of what is in the staff report cuz it was 60 pages. Um here is essentially what was added for the rear setbacks. Um the window wells are allowed as a projection into

the rear yard setback. Um landing walkout porch or stairs um that are used for ingress 2 and eress from the rear of a residential dwelling are limited to 32 ft in size. And stairs in combination with a landing or walkout porch are limited to 32 ft in total area. Um, and this language was standardized and put in all of the zones. Um, we also made a few other changes. Um, I pulled this one specifically from our single family um, districts for single family detached. Um, we wanted to make sure that window wells were specifically called out as a projection exception subject to building and residential codes. um you know, if somebody has a a bedroom in the basement, they need to be able to safely get out and we don't want to prohibit that um based on building code requirements. Um and then just a few other cleanup minor items relating to this elsewhere in the code. Um these are the four requirements that you're very familiar with now. Um we find that it meets one, two, and three. um promotes the general plan and purposes of the the title 17 um the state code section which is now actually outdated. Um and then it clearly explains the intent of original language and we're amending some other language to make interpretation more straightforward. Um this is just out of my staff report on why we think it meets those three criteria. Here's our recommendation to you for your recommendation to the city council. Thank you.

Any questions for me? Do we have projects that need this? Like, how did this come about? Um, the only reason we're doing it is because the state legislature passed this. Um, usually when that happens, it means somebody ran a foul of something and a lobbyist um basically took it to the state and said, "Give me something in state code." So, we're just doing this to stay in compliance with um code that supersedes our own. So, we have to adopt it. Correct. Yes. Yes. I don't need the I don't need the attorney to tell me that. That was clear, wasn't it?

Yeah. And whether we adopted it or not, it would still apply. Um but it makes more sense for it to just be adopted or since 2024. Yeah. So, now we're just Yeah. It's about 2 years old that it's been enforced. So of course if you know everyone has their own perspective and the more eyes who look at this you you may look at it and say but something doesn't work here that we never picked up on you know that's that's I think that's important to remember. Yes. Do does the city need to approve this eventually? Yes. Okay. I got nothing else then.

Okay. Thank you. Legal, anything to add? No, I I think you guys covered it pretty well. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Um, this is public. Like to open this up to the public hearing if there's any comments. Seeing none, I'd like to close the public hearing. I second it. All in favor? I I um I move that we recommend approval of the zoning code text amendment to various sections of title 17 as provided in the attachment with the finding noted in the staff report. Second roll call vote, please. Chair Edwards, yes. Vice Chair Litki,

yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Eric, yes. Commissioner Snow, yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Last item on the agenda uh for the public hearing portion of the meeting is Midvil City initiated text amendments to title 17 of the Midvil City Municipal Code related to homebased micro schools and micro education entities. Elizabeth is presenting.

I think I bested Johnny with this one though. I think this item alone was over 200 pages. So I hope you had fun reading through that. Um, this is another result from the 2024 legislative session from Senate Bill uh 13. Uh, you'll see in the attachments, there were a lot of attachments included. Most of those had to deal with adding these new definitions to use tables. So, new definitions that we've added for homebased micro schools and micro education entities, and I'll get into how those differ a little bit, but we've added those definitions. We've created some supplementary regulations for those and then they had to be added as allowed uses in every single zone in our zoning code. So, we added those in as allowed uses. And then while we were at it, charter schools are also supposed to be allowed in every zone and they weren't in ours. So, just while we were adding other educational facilities, we added those as well. Um homebased micro schools are from a dwelling unit or an ADU much smaller so maximum of 16 students including any employees children which might be residents of the dwelling. Um they have to meet certain square footage requirements per student and then have to submit a traffic plan to the city engineer which includes what I've shown above. Um they're limited in signage. their structure has to comply with a bunch of codes and then they do have parking standards that are included. Uh biggest difference is that if a staff member resides their parking doesn't they they don't have to provide extra parking for themselves. Um micro education entities are much larger and we think those might be new building and other zones. So we have identified in the supplementary regulations which standards they will have to. So there were a couple of zones that were called out where it wasn't quite clear what they might develop under. So we made that very clear. Um much larger a maximum of a 100 students but that is also determined by their occupancy

classification by the state code. So that might differ based on the building. Um the other biggest thing is that we do have street classifications as outlined in our transportation master plan and they any buildings that want to do these larger micro education entities do have to front on a street that is at least a minor arterial or larger. Um, same thing. They'll have to submit a traffic plan and then much larger uh parking requirements. They have kind of a base that they start with and then for every five students beyond those first 24 visitor and on-site drop off, they'll have to then provide more. Um, as Johnny talked about, uh, you have to find criteria that this meets. We find that this promotes the objectives of our general plan and then also the purposes of the state code and brings us into compliance with that. And then I've included a recommendation.

Thank you. questions for Elizabeth. This is so many. Yeah. Yeah. You have 16 parents dropping off 16 kids in a residential neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. Based on um what the state has put forward. Mhm. So I think I think a lot is going to hinge on that traffic plan and and for the city engineer that there has to be some kind of traffic flow, drop off areas, turnaround that is going to minimally impact the area. But yeah, a lot of that is going to hinge on that traffic plan that they'll review. This is nuts. And we have to approve this one, too. Yes. Is like

they did give us some standards and that was one of the things that they said that we could adopt. We could have regulations about traffic and other things. So, we absolutely have included that. I'm trying to think of a scenario where we'd need that. I'm not we've actually never encountered it since they've come up at the state. I don't know if that's a shocker or not, but in the last two years, we haven't had any interest in any micro education or homebased micro schools. I don't I don't know if that was a result of pandemic things or or where that originated at the legislature, but we have had zero interest in it.

So, the one for a 100 students, you'd only need 2,000 square feet of of building. Um, yes, for a 100 students and if they're able to meet their occupancy. I mean, I think that's a maximum. Some of this is outside of my realm. I'm assuming our building official would be in on that. So, um, yeah, it seemed I mean, these are schools, but you still have other safeguards. For example, the building permit and the building code that has, you know, provisions on Yeah. You know, density with with regard to density of people within the building

students on 2,000 square foot. So, building code and also fire code. Yeah. That's not to IBC. You've never had 2,000 people or 100 people in your 2,000 foot home. You know, I don't care about that. I'm carrying about a hundred cars on my street waiting 15 minutes prior to their kids and um and I have a girl in elementary school and it's a mess. Um and that's a school. Yeah, you have a really good point. I mean, one one thing I think all of us can learn is all of us need to be engaged with what happens at the legislature.

Yeah. Um the other thing and and Elizabeth mentioned it um the state law had provisions where cities can have you know you know we have certain levers that we can built into this that hone this in a little bit so that you don't have you knowund you know

100 students next for on your street and and one of the mechanisms and Elizabeth can explain that a little um more has to do with our with our transportation master plan. You know, we when we approved that, we also approved um what's called a functional classification map. So, every street in the road has um a label attached to it. you know, arterial, minor arterial center street, um, and and so on. And that that feeds into this and that that will for the most part, as much as the city can prevent that you would suddenly see, you know, a facility of this size or with that type of traffic impact next door. I was going to say, doesn't that kind of stop? I mean, I can picture somebody in your neighborhood opening up a little school, but

I I have commercial buildings that I can't allow 100 people inside of it. Right. Correct. Well, I think that that's what they're getting at is that under your occupancy and other things, they have that minimum, but there might be other things that will limit the amount of students that they're able to have building building. Yeah. So, does this kind of safeguard basically? Is that kind of what we're thinking or will there's always a way around everything? Well, I think I think the biggest thing is just the traffic, the city engineer. I mean, they've got to be able to support the traffic

and to, you know, my neighbors, they can't support that traffic and my road wouldn't support it because it's too narrow and it's not a it's a minor street and and so that would eliminate the 100 students, but then the the 16 again, they still have to have that drop off and that traffic study. And so I think that limits Yes. everybody. I mean it I can't just say I want to have a school in my house. Well, you can, but I bet you'd be surprised. But yeah. Yeah, but I mean I think

but then we'd have something to fall back on. The city then has something to fall back on to say, well, you know, this doesn't meet. And everything that they gave as optional for the city to regulate, we did add. So everything that we can regulate, we did add in our supplementary to regulate as much as possible. I think it's going to be a very unique situation where any of these would apply. Yeah. Even if they pass all the other stuff, like it's going to be very unique. The problem is is once this passes, it's never going to

Well, and especially with these larger micro education entities, they have to meet all the development standards. So that will kick in in some zones probably architectural standards. It will kick in landscaping standards. It will so there will still be other safeguards that exist in our zoning ordinance for any new development that they will have to consider as part of new development. I think the harder ones might be those homebased micro schools that are retrofitting an existing dwelling and and then I'm imagining that traffic plan will play a large role in that. Okay. Thank you. Wow. Thanks. Legal. Anything to add? You can shake your head if you want. No, I don't.

Okay. She covered it. Thank you. I'd like to open this up to public comment. Seeing they don't want to comment, I move that we close the public hearing portion. Second. All in favor? I I Heidi. Uh oh. Elizabeth, are you able to change it for us? Thank you. Oops. I move that we recommend approval of the amendment as provided in the attachments with the finding noted in the staff report. Second. Roll call vote, please. Chair Edwards, yes. Vice Chair Litki, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes.

Commissioner Ericson, yes. Commissioner Snow. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Project information on that. I did. Next item on the agenda, uh, planning department report for staff update.

I don't have much to report today. Um, one thing though I wanted to mention real quick. Um you might remember that the city um re was part of a large grant application by the state the raise grant and we started working on that I'm wanting to say in 2022 um and it got approved then the administration in Washington DC changed and they put all of that money on hold um but it was relieved East actually just recently and um everything is on a very short timeline but UD do had a meeting with us um last week and um the money for our projects is going to flow at the end of this year. So construction we would then anticipate late next year at some point. And this this was for um Buffett bike lanes uh on Holden Street and up north to Murray's um boundary on Cottonwood Street. Um and then our center street um project where we are modifying the road crosssection, adding a linear park and also a shared use trail. That's there's a about three mill no don't quite remember two three million um is this federal money and then also a connection at the 14 track station. So we were really happy about that because we had all basically written that money off.

Yeah. But it came through in the end. Wow. That's great. Meant to be cool. And then no meeting in two weeks. Um, yes, no meeting right after Memorial Day. I saw it on the website. That's how I knew. Yeah. Perfect. That brings us to the end of the agenda. I move that we adjourn the meeting at 6:35. 6:35 p.m. I second. All in favor? Bye. Bye.