Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome. Hello. Hi, I'm Quinn Ne. Nice to meet you. Thank you for serving. He is our lean on with the city council. Okay, you ready? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call the work session for the planning commission to order at 4:32 p.m. on January 31st, 2026 in the city council conference room. And we are going to begin with a discussion about allowable heights of primary residence.

Okay. Um, so let me just give you a little bit of a a background real quickly about why we're talking about this again. Once did we do two? We might have talked about it twice. Um the last time um mid mid late November uh the city council wanted to see it again with a a new suggestion. So we went over that with the city council. That was the end of the year last year. Um and they kind of liked that idea or the the things about it or some things about it and want us to go forward with that kind of a a direction and get a text amendment ready to bring forward. But um we felt like we had to show you guys the latest things they saw before we surprise you with something else. So, this is the latest version of what we've been thinking about residential height. Does that make sense? Long background. Here you go. So, just to start with really quickly, um, and I I'm realizing that I I didn't get a 35 in all of those boxes, but that should just be a repetitive 35 all the way down. Um, all of our zones right now allow 35 ft maximum height.

Nothing on the screen. Not seen anything behind. We don't have Okay. Well, I see the Chrome icon. The Chrome. We just don't see which window you're on. I like your um the Okay, hang on a second. You got to extend your screen to it. Slideshow several I want to cover right up to it again. Give me one second. displays. I don't know. Yeah, it's treating it like a second monitor. Okay. Duplicate.

There we are. Now they can. Okay. Can you see it now? Yes. Now we see where the 35s are not extended all the way down. HDR.

Now you can see my shame. To my great shame, the 35s have not been extended like they should have been. It's an easy thing to do. Uh there aren't any qualifiers in the different zones except for R20 and R12. If you have a large enough lot in the R20 and 12 that you can increase your setbacks, then you can do up to 45 ft. Um but the others don't have that. You just meet 35 for for everything. Um couple of notes. Heights measured from grade level. Uh the the restrictions don't apply to koopas or chimneys and things like that. Um and to talk about grade level is that street grade level or

that's a great question. So this is um the height of building is just the straight vertical distance from the highest point from the grade. Okay. And we measure grade as the average elevation of the finished ground level at the center of all the walls of the building excluding landscape features like planters around the building. So basically we take the corners of the building and average the grade level for that building. And in this picture here kind of gives you an example. So the average grade is somewhere down in the middle of this building at that level and that's where we measure the height from. So you could be on a hill 35 is still going to be so you might be a little taller on this side of a hill at 35 because it's 4 ft lower or whatever than the average grade level. You bring in 10 ft of dirt,

right? And you might be a little bit you might be a little lower on the front of a hill if you're because your average grade is going to be a little lower. So it's an average grade from those four corners of the building or corners of the building. Not that every building is perfectly square, but that's how it reads from the corners of the building.

And that's an important point that you brought up about bringing in fill. Occasionally, you may have a project that comes in and because of the utilities in the area, they need more cover for the utility. So, they bring in fill and then you can't grade from that new fill level. Whereas an existing neighborhood adjacent to them that's roughly the same grade may have different utilities put in different time that connect differently and so they're actually lower in the ground and have no fill. So you can have something that's fairly level and fill will be brought in and then you go up 35 ft. Right?

So it can get a little spooky where developments come together. Um, and there's changes in grade elevations, but that's how we measure the average. So, 35. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay. Um, now just a real quick talk about varied roof heights and styles. So, some of the concern that where this originated stemmed from the fact that it was a flat roof building that kind of got noticed first. Um so looking at these pitches 1 1 over 12 2 3 12 um a lot of different cities use 2 to 12 and say that's flat if your if your pitch is as as as low as 2 to 12 that's really a flat roof in essence. So, um, we suggest maybe that an idea could be to say a flat roof is not just flat, it's a pitch of 212 or less. And then flat roofs get a maximum height that's less, 24 ft. So, you don't deal with those threetory structures flat roofed. Um, and pitched roofs would remain at a maximum 35 ft high. You can leave those exceptions in there. R1 12 and our 20 50 foot setbacks kind of ameliate any concern about all buildings. Um, and again you have this flat roof deal and pitched roof distinction shell. Does that make sense? The 212 the council at the time actually talked about saying 312 and 412 seem flat enough to me to call those flat roofs too. 212 is what I've seen in in other codes. Um 312 and 412 are you are they're common enough that call those uh pitch roof. So I don't know. We'll have to keep looking at that. Again, we're not ready to bring anything forward right now. We're just been asked to to finish looking at it and bring something and we wanted to show you the latest things counc um so the roof heights any questions there was all the way from the house I grew up in to Swiss charm in the mountains. Um varied setbacks for different roof types. This is just one option that we have that that makes some

sense. Pitch roofs, again, anything that's greater than 212, get the 35 ft in height. And flat roofs, get the 212 or less or 20 ft in height or maybe one and a half stories above grade. That's another way we could look at it and keep those those really tall flat roof things from happening, whichever is less at the required front setback. And then you get four ft of additional height for every 5t you set your house back. So, you could still do kind of if you're um of the mindset that you want a modern house roof lines, inverted roof lines or whatever or flat roof lines, you can do it, but you're going to have to have space to do it. You're going to have to have a larger lot to make that work. Does that make sense? 24 ft to the sophet. Sure. Instead of don't care about the roof, just say 24.

That's not a bad idea. And then it's a different approach, but it does the same kind of thing. Yeah, you can have whatever pitch you want, but it's still this tall. Whether it angles or it's flat, it's 24 out the subject. Yeah. So, I'll say that oddity. Looks like that was a kind term. What's that depicting? It's higher than 24 ft. Yeah. 35. Exactly. flat roof.

Yeah, this this this one wouldn't be allowed under the under a change like this. They'd have to do something different. Um or under something like Mike's suggesting there. Um yeah, it's 35 right up. Well, it sure looks taller now when you drive by. Yeah. Well, it's it's raised up on that on that lot a little bit too on the talking about grading. It's graded up just a little bit. So you get an extra couple of feet that way visually and then down around the down around this side on palisade if you can see kind of the three three and a half ft maybe coming up. So you get some of that from the street. It feels real. What? Six foot fence. Yeah.

You can get an idea of how close it is to the bottom of that building. But that's also another one if you've been to the lot where a lot of the ground is raised up. So even the sixoot fence looks low. Looks low, too. Yeah. But we're talking about the pitch of the roof. Yeah. I just wanted to Yeah, it's 35 rod. It's It fills it up exactly. Um, and they're from easement to easement, too, aren't they?

Yeah, there's an easement in the back that's kept them from being a little larger than they would have liked to have been if they if they didn't have that 20 foot easement on the as bigger than like 40 foot easement or something. Um, so one other thing that the council that we showed the council is another approach to this that could be added to these kinds of approaches or done as the only approach is called a graduated height envelope. So this gets a little uh this gets a little mathy. So those of you that are into the math, get excited because you get to do geometry here. So but it can be it can be described pretty simply for people that are not mathy like myself. So here you go. You you leave the 35 ft height or something like that in place and say if you're a pitch roof, you get 35 ft in height. However, some of the big conflicts that we have with tall homes have to do with those sideyards that are close. you got a 10-ft sideyard and a 35 ft uh wall for a house. Uh to combat that, a lot of a lot of cities use a code called a graduated height envelope. Basically, you measure up 8 ft at the property line and you draw a 45° line from that 8 foot top toward the center of the lot and everything in the house has to fit within that diagonal line, that imaginary box. So, you basically pitch the box that you allow. So, you're not requiring a pitch droof. They could do a flat earth. They can't do it within that graduated height envelope because you have the right to change heights and allowances. They do allow you to um penetrate that plane, that 45° plane with something like a a gable or a cornice. So, you can still have that upper story and it can have a window and you can utilize that space better, but you're going to have to add architectural feature to do it. And that starts to eliminate some of the big complaints that we get from neighbors about these big blank walls or big massive walls. It's it's it's usually this way with height. I don't know if it's it's probably not universal. I don't have any scientific data to back this up, but this has been my experience. Town homes, for example, a

lot of people like town homes and hate town homes. And sometimes the folks that hate them the most are their first experience with town homes was a new development that was a unit count of 13 or 14 or 15 units all the way down in one solid building. That's a lot of mass. It's not the height as much as the mass that bothers people. And I think that's true. When you look back at something like this, the height is intrusive. But if that were a pitched roof with a couple of different roof lines and things, it's not as well. If it was an on an R20, nobody'd care either. It's far enough because it's not dominaring the houses right next to it. Half an acre and the houses next to it don't get

it's proximity to other things. So it's you know that's the town homes. If you put them out in the middle of a field, nobody cares because there's space. Yeah. You take away that space and it's you're in a concrete jungle scenario on two sides. No room. There's no breathable space. More claustrophobic effect. Yeah. Exactly. People don't like it.

Exactly. Yeah. And I think that that's a good that's a good way to describe it, Mike. And that's what kind of something like this graduated height envelope aims to to do away with. So you don't have as much mass going up high. Um, does that make sense everybody? Okay. So it's we we just as staff if we adopt something like this, we have to be really careful as we measure those heights and make sure that they're not violating that envelope. Um, things like chimneys don't have to meet it. Uh, wouldn't have to meet it. Um, etc. But um anyway, that's that's what that graduated high envelope does. So they do have exceptions for dormers and gables. This does so does kind of dual duty. It it de facto adds architectural feature which everybody wants that we can't require by statute. Um but this doesn't violate that. It's in effect in a few cities. Um Glee Holiday notably does this. Salt Lake does this in some neighborhoods, not all their neighborhoods, but some. um and not St. George, somebody further down south, Cedar or someone like that does the graduated height envelopes. Um and then other places in the country as well, but what concerned me most was Utah because we have that statute that says we can't determine or we can't require a certain pitch. Um this doesn't appear to do that. So, um and then individual elevations that face a public street. So, your front the front yard doesn't have that same requirement, but you're you're going to be 25 ft away from that street, so you're not you're not impacting a neighbor that way. Um, or a non-residential use. That's not necessarily we we want to look at that a little more carefully. I just threw that in the way it is in the other cities because uh a backyard line or a sideyard line that faces the 7-Eleven, well, nobody cares until the 7-Eleven changes and then gets reszoneed for residential or something, then it matters. But usually they don't um they don't impose this plane on sideyards that face um non

residential uses. Two I have like three questions now. So you said sideyards only sideyards not the back. Back matters too. Just the front facing a public street. If your backyard also happens to face public street if you're a double frontage lot then it also wouldn't apply. Okay. Any any individual elevation facing a public street? Yeah. You talked about enforcement. Of the two sets of ideas, which one is actually easier for staff to enforce? Or is it sixes? It's probably sixes. I mean, this is this just requires us to to do a little simple math when we're I say simple math because I'm not the one doing it a lot.

How do you There's no reason why I'm applying an engineer, but I will do what I'm I know you. I mean, it's easy enough to do. And I think that that's somewhat of a consideration. Yeah. I mean because your ability to enforce this should be a consideration in whatever statute changes we make ever. Right.

Well, I agree. That's that's a good point. Want to be careful that we're able to actually calculate it and say so that when people ask if as they inevitably will, does this meet those standards for height? We can say yes, it does. Um right now we need to make sure we're right now we're already in a position of making sure we're doing a good job of calculating what grade is. Um averaging those those points. we we need more data to do that than they usually give us. And so when we're concerned about it, we have to look for that. This will be the same kind of thing. Looks like it's going to be any kind of a problem. We'll have to make sure we get good data from them as builders and but we can use it to to calculate the plane and say, well, this might be a violation. So I think we can do either one. The other the other considerations are easier to deal with just saying, but they could stay in as well. I I'm not suggesting that this would necessarily solve all of the problems associated that that everyone is having with flat roofs. I think you'd still want to limit flat roofs either to 24 ft overall or something like this, a graduated effect where it's flat roof at 20 um at or one and a half stories and then you get additional head as you go back further with a setback. Um I think you should still do something like that.

The Aztec look. Yeah, but you could not to me this you could you could do it other ways. You could make your top level, your second story uh birthday caked. Yeah,

but you know, I think most people usually opt for something else, but with flat roofs, you could do that if they wanted to do that kind of thing. Um but yeah, I think we can enforce either one. It's just and we're fine to do it. We're not we're not processing 400 lot subdivisions anymore, so we're not in a terrible position to do it. It's not it's not untenable. If we were processing really large subdivisions all the time, it would be tough. The hardest one we'll have to do will be the two that we've got on coming up now with Whit Stone and and Canyon Park. There aren't a lot of places where we're going to do more than 30 lots at a time ever again. So, I'm not too worried about it. Um, any other questions?

Is there any general indication or is this literallyformational? This is what you presented to them. That's what you presented us. these things felt like this would be a good way to go forward. Can we, you know, tighten up the wording a little bit and bring it forward and start looking at a text? Are we allowed to express any opinions right now? The way you said it made me think that you what the what we did in our presentation to the council

Yes. was to show them some ideas of possible ways of dealing with this issue that could I think Jared said in a in a meeting uh with planning commission once our what our zoning code does is it describes the box within which you can build this person and this is the first time I've seen something like this in 20 plus years built the box

as opposed to just building what most people would consider a home in it. So, when we went and explained to the council back in November, here's some ideas. Uh here's some benefit of thinking from the planning commission that we've had, this is what we're thinking. What do you think about these ideas? Is there anything wildly off the table? And the answer was no. You need to go back now, follow the process, bring it to planning commission. So, in planning commission, what we would be looking for you to do is tell us uh do you think we've missed something? You know, Mike brought up the idea of a soft, you know, and that could be something that might be easier to look at. We we don't have an answer for you tonight, you know, we

Yeah, we'd have to take a look at that and and look for unintended consequences and how it would work. But the solutions that we have seem to be viable with other communities in in the research that we've done. My question on this property line, where do we start going up? Cuz if we're talking a raised Yeah. yard, you cut right through the middle of a house. If you go to the backyard and it's, you know, four feet lower than the That's a good question. The foundation. So now I've just raised lowered the height to 20 ft because cuts across the way it does.

That's a good question. Maybe we need to look at some exceptions for extreme grades or something. But the way it's written and and understandable that I I might even say that require them to get an exception per for every grade that's can't fit in your box. Yeah. That way if you get a box, somebody builds the box, you could say, "No, we're not going to build the box this time." That's a good point. I don't know how it works with extreme grades. We'd have to look at that. Yeah. And and that is one of the issues is how do you calculate uh grade

and do you want to go from something like uh the front yard the curb at the front yard setback or something different? um you know because we explain that issue with utilities. Often one development comes in because they're uh sewered differently and to get sewer grades. You know, sometimes they have to raise the entire uh uh lots or the whole subdivision up a few feet to get the necessary grades for storm water, sewer, water. You pressurize usually not a problem, but these other ones can be. And so that's a component that plays into this. So what we're looking for you is to look at this and give us feedback like, oh, what about sophet? Does that work? And the grade issues as you've gone around the community. Um, you know that it always happens. you have a on a hillside you have a big grade and

even if you build a 10-ft tall home and you're uphill from somebody this person's not happy downhill yeah you could see it little subdivision we did right on 1600 off of uh 400 east closed up the road and coming up to the fence the dirt is almost all the way to the top of those people's back fence now and so They're, you know, now you're going to build a 30ft. Their level is building 4 and 1/2 ft from the top of your yard. If you, but if you use their grade on their fence, they wouldn't get what they'd get a one-story uh flat roofed house with this.

Depending on where you put the grade. So, and my question on that one specifically is, was that I've heard it was raised up for drainage, not necessarily sewer hookup. So when you have storm drain issues and we raise for storm drain, there are other ways to do that, but it costs the developer more. Is that correct?

It it it depends. It it it there's with grades and storm drain and runoff. Um we need to eventually get it into the city system. And so off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that. Frequently, the easiest way for the city to do things is to get it out to the street in front of the home. That's the desire for it. and whether this uh particular development is uh where a retention or a detention basin would work. You know, I I just don't have enough information on that

because it really should reflect on the buildability of the land in my opinion. You know, we can't to to to your point that is I mean that's right up in my area. You're you're almost to the their backyards are going to be a foot below the fence of the house next to them, the existing home. So, does that affect that? That there should be some conversations about that.

Yes. And that's what all of this is about. We can't do anything about that subdivision because they built according to uh our code and our code doesn't uh make an exception or doesn't deal with bringing in fill. So people could bring in a tremendous amount of fill and then you calculate 35 ft from there. And so, and as you have infill in your community, and we're an infill community now, uh, you're going to have issues like that repeatedly. There are sometimes benefits of going first as a developer, and sometimes there's benefits of going last, and sometimes there's burdens of going first, and there's burdens of going last. And when you go last, you can frequently really impact neighbors uh because a you know grades and storm drains and things like that are already set in the area and you've got to fit into all of those. You know, we should going last should be things like retaining walls and other things that you have to consider because you're bringing fill then you have to have certain that we should consider stuff like that and and with this code this is to the proposed ideas here are to deal with an immediate issue of somebody built the box. But one thing Worm doesn't have that's a weakness in our uh regulatory scheme is dealing with infill. We're now a community like uh Jared was saying we don't have, you know, 200 acres areas left where people are just going to come in and over 10 years build a thousand homes. Uh we're going to be coming in and tearing down homes and rebuilding homes on individual lots. And

right now I don't really have a code where I could tell somebody, okay, you're in the middle of a neighborhood. It was all built now you're going to tear down and now you want to bring in 5 ft of fill because you want a 12ft basement uh ceiling. I don't know that I can say no to that under our code. So, what is just help me clarify in my mind what is the intent of what we're trying to do here because we're talking a lot about text and height and all that kind of stuff and I'm not clear what we're trying to do. Jared, yeah, you go back to that.

Are we trying on the palade? Are we trying to tech protect views? No, trying to neighborhood integrity. Let me finish, please. Trying to fix you. Neighborhood integrity. Access to sunlight in people's yards that might be encumbered by a nextdoor neighbor. What are we trying to do? We trying to do all the above. I I'm not really sure what we're trying to do.

Okay. No to everything that you just said. What we are trying to do is that that can't a flat roof building can't be uh built to 35 ft tall and maximize to the setbacks that's required on all sides and that makes our text job a lot easier. Yeah. We're just trying to prevent 35 what?

Yeah. And and that's all we're trying to do with what we are proposing here. Now, if you want to get into the issue of view protection and things like that as people rebuild in individual neighborhoods on or on individual lots in subdivisions that are 30, 40, 50 years old. This ordinance that we're talking about and the principles we're talking about do not take care of that situation. That's an infill development ordinance

that uh you need to think about because ORM is now an infill community where existing lots will be bought up, homes will be torn down and because of cost of housing and things like that, it's now economical for somebody to come into a neighborhood uh tear down a little rambler, it's a whole neighborhood of ramblers, and build a three-story McMansion it. We're going to start seeing that. Now, if that's a concern, then that's an issue outside of this that the planning commission and council will ultimately need to deal with. But

thank you for clarify beyond this 35 ft. It's also about uniformity of neighborhoods. Never about protecting someone's view. You can't do that. But uniformity of neighborhoods, property rights on both sides of the fence. Um that's been the the narrative for right or wrong or wherever. No, you know, no real decisions, but that's kind of the comfort the bullet points. Yeah. Tell tell the people that views don't matter to the people are holding up the temple bill in Hebrew. They've tied that up in court for a long long long time. So I don't agree with that comment, but thank you for clearing that. Yeah, that's not what's going on in Hebrew, though. But

okay. Um, one last thing, and this isn't this isn't necessarily this is another thing that we could do to keep it really simple, and it's just an a an idea. You could do a simple exterior building wall height of 20 ft imposed where a house is placed at the required setback on an interior sideyard and then say just like we do with the flat roofs are suggesting with flat roofs, then take another foot of height for every additional foot of setback and then give it the same kind of exceptions for cables. That would be nice and easy to do, but the graduated height does a better job of kind of protecting the, you know, the light and air and not feeling leaned over. Extra simple version.

Sorry, I want to go back in the conversation because there's something I wanted to talk about. We just kind of brushed over it and that's the flat roof. The the 12 over two over two, I mean, just like 2 over 12 and what constitutes a flat roof. Um, and you were saying consistently within other communities the 2 over 12 is considered flat roof cuz I think I would think that that is the minimum you would want around here as opposed to a straight flat really flat and see we it doesn't what I'm suggesting here or what I'm trying to say in this in this slide is uh a pitch a very low pitch a very shallow pitch of 2 over 12 might as well be flat well might as well be straight zero um 12 to 12 it's Not

it provides water runoff and and belts and it gives you just enough. That is why you do 2 over 12 instead of flat is because you want it pitch but it drains not exactly why you do it though. No just but to me that seems like flat you get a lot of rain it'll puddle and it'll go through. I don't think we get to say say that. I know we say that flat that 212 is the minimum. I know, but it would be nice. Considering it to be flat, do the next best version of that. Well, if you're only going to two two over 12, then you're still basically flat. And we're not trying to deal with the drainage and things. We're trying to deal with the height issues. And so 212 gets you something for drainage, but it doesn't really are height issues.

21 is pretty much flat. And I've never run into somebody who built a true 012 roof. Yeah. because of that. I guess there is always just a little bit has to be under the building there have to be some to Does that make sense now or is it I just wanted to clarify that a little bit and have a little more of a discussion with it because we just kind of but here's all this and let's move on. So yeah, I I tend to go through these little faxy. So to Gary's point, the info, what do we need to do to make sure we start looking at ordinances and updating things to make sure that we're ahead of the game, not behind the eightball. Part of that's the general plan. I was going to that's I was going to use that

housing chapter on the general plan. General plan is a high view. Is it ordinances? No, but we need implementation. There's both sides of it, right? But if we state in the general plan that we're an infill community and goals and then we set the statutes to go along with it, right? Yeah. Statutes are really are your general plan.

One of the goals of the general plan in the housing section would be acknowledged we're 95% developed that uh new development will probably be redevelopment. uh the city needs to take a look at uh a redevelopment code and and look for a bunch of the issues that we've talked about and how how do we protect existing properties but yet allow redevelopment. So we'll need to kind of set the general plan gives us an opportunity to kind of set those parameters and then the zoning should come from that once it's been the community has established how hard they want to go at different aspects of that re that redevelopment infill then we go to match that so that's what we want to do council talked about all that I think the night we presented these things um worries about how it would affect truly small lot development things like that all came up so we want to look at that real carefully um And yeah, we can go forward with that. But the like to Gary's main point, this is to fix an immediate problem and make sure we put some kind of I don't want to call it a stop gap measure, but it's almost that trying to to stop a potential bleeding and then we'll start refining things after that. Does that make sense? So, we'll try to bring it back to you right away. We just wanted to make sure you were aware of where we're headed with it. And if if none of that is truly problematic for you, we'll go forward with these kind of ideas. I don't see a problem as long as it's focused on that one thing.

Cool. We'll go for it. Um, any other questions? Okay, I have a question slide. So, once I go off the question slide, there are no more questions. It's allowed. It says right there. Okay. Going gone. Okay.

Okay. General plan update. Next, the next thing on the agenda to talk about just for a few minutes anyway is our general plan update. Um, couple of a couple of things to note. Just trying to reassess things with Grant leaving and and and looking at the new year coming. Um, I wanted to reassess kind of where we were and get be able to get started again. So, this is our this is our sort of status. So, it's not a timeline. Um, but we want to get moving again and and get moving quickly. We're about in terms of numbers of chapters, we're just about 50% untouched. We've got four chapters that we have not roached at all yet. And a couple others that we've talked about, but not enough to really have a a true draft in place. We do have a couple of drafts that are pretty complete, but that will still need some some more review. Um, so what I want to talk about tonight with you all is uh what is next on your minds? We've done some mapping exercises. is do we need to do some more of that as we get into these next chapters? Uh we left off on I believe we left off on economics and we're headed toward transportation but we never got to really do it got started. Is that where we want to be next is transportation. Um Gary just mentioned we were just talking about housing and redevelopment. We kind of wanted to go through these other things first and get to housing at the end. Um and then redevelopment will play will play a part in that as well. Just considers commercial as well. Um, what do you what do you all think is transportation that are we ready to start tackling transportation or do you want to go back to um one of the ones that we're not quite finished with like economics or or even land use for that matter? What are you feeling for appetite?

I' I'd love to see us go back to do some of those exercises we did land use the last time with the convention center. Yeah. and hitting some of the high points we've talked about. But be more focused that way because I think we had a really good conversation. We had a lot come out of that and then we just switched right after. It's like ah like to redo some of this but I also would love to talk about transportation. Well, and that's kind of where it's the do we want to spend more time on economics right now or do we want to do transportation and kind of get some of those goals aligned and then go back and hit some of these other ones. You probably do is set the goals to do that.

Go back because some of this is right. You've got to come up with stuff and then you need to go back through and say, "Okay, how does this affect this one? How does it affect each element?"

And the goal I think for this planning commission update is to keep it at a very high level like the redevelopment discussion. Not that in the redevelopment chapter we come up and answer all of these questions that we've raised, but just that oh these are important things that we need to study and and get done uh and make sure we uh discuss those issues and come back later with now the next level which would be a zoning code that's now on the ground. I hopefully this general plan update would serve as for the next several years a work flow for us of what we're addressing.

And that's some of how we've been trying to divide things out too is that here's the goals, the main goals, here's some of the values associated, and here's the list of everything we probably really need to start working on in kind of a general sense. you know we need to update code for this we need to look into this we need to have this analysis done so that's kind of can that's I think that's a real important point I know we need to keep this very high level but somewhere maybe like in the appendix can we just identify and highlight the city code that needs to be updated and changed that's that's a whole another

well I know But just to identify Aaron has thoughts clearly. Did he shoot me a laser death right there stare? I think I got it which I thought was a little My head was turned. I I'm sorry that is not what I meant to communicate. I know you actually teasing. I really am. No, you could hire somebody just to go through the code to figure out what everything needs to

Well, what I think would be a good idea is to put in an appendix uh in implementation section and not necessarily that we've gone through the code and identified, oh, this code's problematic, we need to change it, but issues like we need to come up with a redevelopment code. We need to come up with uh bill plans, how you what you can bring in, what you can't bring in, and how much.

Yeah, things like that that we just identify the issue. Then over the next few years, planning along with other departments, we we take these and start working on them and try to rank in priority of the plans that we need to do. And like I said, we are starting to try and capture those as as its own little subsection with everything to say, okay, for this goal. These are the things that need to be done, but we need to keep identifying those. And yeah, if we want to pull them out and put them in an appendex, we can figure out where they belong. But I'm just saying we are kind of identifying. We have been trying to identify the three levels because really the more we dig into this, the more we study this, the more we get into this, the more we're like, "Oh, we're missing that. That needs to be updated. Probably need to look into this. This needs a study. You

could do it in perpetuity forever. You could really could. Go ahead. Well, that's why I'm I'm not asking to solve world hunger and cure cancer, but just the record show Rod does not care about cancer and hunger. I know. Really? You thought about a career in politics, have you? Um, but we talk about a lot of things, but it seems like we talk about and we don't identify a place for followup. Sure. I mean, we have in our brilliant chair's mind a lot of things filed away, but you know,

I like Gary's suggestion of it being that appendix being an an implementation plan. It could actually be its own chapter implementation, right? Before you get to appendix, that that helps people like me um and and in the planning division, then we have a framework to say this is what we're working on next. It's the next priority. we need to by August or whatever have taken some sort of draft or researched this or that or the other. It helps us long range planning. Absolutely.

And then on a yearly basis or semianually or however we do it, we review that planning commission and council because your recommendation will go to the council and the council will have an opportunity to look at it and say, "Okay, yeah, there's these 20 priorities. we know you can't do 20 things this year at once and and find out ultimately from the council what their priority is to work on next and they'll align those with their goals and and areas of emphasis that they have and and then that takes that gives me direction to take back to the planning department. Then I sit down with Jared. It's like, okay, here's our workflow for the next year, you know, let's now make assignments out. Let's get moving on this. Who do we need to bring in? How do we do this? And and then we can move forward on that.

I would love that. I think idea. Okay. So, so that brings us full circle to the question of transportation or more and and they don't have to be one or the other. We could do depending on the lightness of an agenda, we could do a pre where we're talking about transportation or where we do and this is the better room for our mapping exercises. We could do a premeating mapping exercise and go in the main room and talk about transportation a little bit. Get a get an idea for it. I'm not opposed. So part of the just to go back part of the reason we're talking about transportation was because we we had done parks and wreck right before and that one there was a lot of overlap between the trails and the bikes and the and so there's some stuff there to look at. Yeah, you're right. The last conversations we had were about trails mostly.

Mhm. Yeah.

And one thing we are currently working on right now uh planning activity that we're doing is our active transportation plan. We've we've affirmatively have already started that. We're a few months into it, coordinating with staff and other organizations. And so that will be coming. So when it came to transportation, one easy win would be, yeah, work on the act of transportation. Okay, great. Because we're already in the middle of that. But that's something that that with transportation, we do need to marry that with parks. And like well, and this is just kind of an aside just to keep get in mind is like one of the things like with the transportation like the safe walks to school stuff. There's some real strong stuff that's already in both our transportation master plan and the um and the general plan that leans towards that or parks and wreck. It's in the park and wrecks I think actually. But we've got our neighborhood schools. We want kids to be able to safely get there. looking at those and trying to make those systems work will benefit the citizens too. So I mean there's there's a lot of those kinds of things that we can talk about and with the new school district coming on there will be a need for a lot of coordination and meeting with the new school district on those things to make sure that what their plans moving forward that they fit in with what we're trying to do and vice versa. So I think there's a lot of those kind of places that all fit in together and those and that in turn affects housing and that in turn affects so I I think maybe are we good on transportation or just doing maybe a week or so on transportation to get started on that. I mean we did the transportation master plan that one in and of itself is fairly recent. Um so it's more like getting the

general plan to kind of match goals. This would be a a framework, real an exercise in a framework that matches the master and keeps everything level like Gary's talking about. Yeah, that shouldn't be too bad. Um, I'm I'm good with that if you guys want to go that way. Just want to know what you want to see next. And then I'm good going back to mapping, too. But I think I think we should talk about transportation just cuz Are you good with that or do you want to do math? You like maps? Well, no. I just I just see that uh what you decide makes a difference in how you want to handle transportation. That's all. Can go both ways.

Well, I just there we had a lot of these discussions and I really don't think until that last meeting that we were making good headway with land use and other things like that that we spin our we were spinning our wheels for a couple months on it. Honestly, I don't think we said anything of value until the last meeting. And I would love to go back and actually do the same thing we did last time across the map instead of just, well, we might be over here. Do you see that as economics or do you see that as redevelopment? Or do you see that as land use? Land use. Land use. Okay. I I'm just trying to I mean, land use affects everything down stream. Yeah, it does.

So that's I don't know. What you feel like is we need one. This is why we started with it. What we feel like is that we need another mapping exercise with land use that we can then turn into more draft. I'm good with that, too. Just want something to chew on to work on. So, um that's just my opinion. We can do that. Just one loud voice. I agree. I agree with both points. I think well both ways goes. Yeah. But if we my only argument for I'll make one more argument for economics is that I mean transportation that if we do transportation then we've kind of covered everything but housing but we've kind of done housing with land use and then we can go back and start we haven't done urban design

urban design redevelopment. We've talked about getting rid of urban design and folding that one into redevelopment redevelopment slashhousing slash It's a component of everything right now. It's a component of everything. Yeah. Well, I mean they are there are the other two are kind of subsections of housing.

The redevelopment development is definitely going to have some some urban design elements in it within it at least at least sort of broad statements. Um we can do we we can do another mapping back to land use. So we can still talk about transportation too. We have a full hour for the for the general plan for sorry for the uh the premeating and we can always go back into it after the regular meeting too. And I guess my feelings also on transportation is so we can get information so we can start drafting. Sure. That's more my personal concern about it. Let's do them both. We'll do a mapping exercise. We'll talk about framework for transportation after that. Okay. Does that work? Okay. I will do that.

Okay. And again, just keep in mind as you're going through these things, if you could only of all the issues you see with the general plan, and this isn't a a criticisms, this is just how this works. There's always more to do than we have time, money, and people. And so we do need to uh be thinking about a recommendation to the council of what is the most important next steps that we need to do. Is it uh you know working on a redevelopment ordinance to deal with things? Is it uh more intensive planning effort on uh say State Street in the Parkway and some of our high commercial corridors in dealing with issues that we have on those? Is it housing strategies?

You know,

you know, I can't do 20 things in one year. So, and some things will take months, months and months to work on. So, just keep that in the back of your mind. Can I ask Gary and Jared um since you know the old general plan I do. Um where do you feel like we have the biggest challenges um in terms of a general plan that feels very outdated? That's a good question. Um, for that particular plan, I think our greatest challenge is making it sort of is to me anyway, and this is just from my own personal beef with it, is it's not very referential. It's hard to it doesn't give me a lot in places where I expect it to give me some some sort of outlines. I look at it and go, "Okay, well, will the general plan support or not support this next application that's coming up and it's just not not there. There's just nothing for me. There's no there's there aren't a lot of goals or implementation policies or anything like that for me to look at and say as a staff person, yes, this is in line with the general plan or no, this is not." It's a lot of statement and not a lot of um it's low on the implementation. That's kind of to me it's biggest.

And that's universal across all of these chapters. Uh yeah, some of them are worse than others. What if it's very fuzzy? Yeah, they overlap. And where would it be worse than others?

Transportation's actually not bad in terms of references, uh things that you could use in a in a report, for example, or points you could make. Housing doesn't have anything. the land use chapter. A lot of land use general plans, a lot of land use chapters will the different categories and then say these are the the prescribed zones and we do that. That's about as far as it goes. Beyond that, there's no sort of extra considerations or an objective in this kind of land use would be to making up stuff to increase the number of trees that are contributing to the urban forestry. We don't have those kinds of things to say here's where the general plan here's where the general plan really intersects with what we're doing. It's the land use chapters is usually where we're quoting from. There's not a lot to do there. Just a list. What I'd like to see the general plan become is so you have the general plan up here and it's a 60,000 foot view of the city and then you have the zoning code which is the on the ground regulatory scheme that a developer needs to comply with to move forward on something. And the general plan has a lot of, you know, good, we love ORM statements, you know, things like that, but it doesn't give me direction on what to do down here and what changes, if any, I should make on the ground.

There's uh not explicit connections between the zoning regulations of the general plan. it not a lot or or at least not identifying weaknesses and where I should spend my time dealing with this ordinance and not that would be okay if I routinely heard, "Wow, you guys have a great ordinance. We just love how it works." And

am I hearing that? And and I'm not hearing that uh I'm I'm not hearing a tremendous amount of oh this is horrible but I hear oh we've got problems here and you know like that building height you know okay so how do I should I be if you read our general plan you would not know that building that building that we're looking at anybody would have a problem with it in the community. And just to add my two cents to that, like parks and wreck literally is a list of our parks and what we have in each of our parks. It's it's not about

building anything or public works is the same. Say we want pickle ball, skateboard. It just is. It's just we have parks and we have these amenities at each of these parks. Not very useful. An inventory. It is, but I feel like a lot of it land use is an inventory, too. We have an R12. we have and this is medium. Hi and but they're they're vague. They're a lot of um a lot of them uh quote each other like even all the definitions cross they don't they're not clearly defined that this is what we consider commercial or rural versus medium density and high density they all have the same groups of things. So it's it's not even particularly it's just informative. Not very helpful that way.

Yeah.

And and that's not necessarily unsurprising to me in a community like ORM because you have the general plan up here and how the general plan works is you've got public works doing their master plans and those typically will come in and be a part of the general plan. You've got a transportation plan that comes in as a part of the general plan. a parks and wreck plan. Well, we've got also a parks and wreck board. We also have a transportation advisory committee. We also have a public works advisory committee. and but yet they're a part of the general plan. And there's hopefully what planning commission would do in general plan would set overarching principles and guidance so that when parks does their plan in the future. They would look to the

consistent. Yeah. they would look to the parks and wreck section of our general plan and say, "Okay, when we do the our plan, we're going to do it and work with our consultant based on these principles." Same thing with transportation and public works. We're we're being consistent with that general plan. And right now, I would have a hard time finding that. That's very helpful. Thanks. We need to adjourn so we can get ready for our main meeting. Thank you. And we will start our meeting in a few minutes everybody. Thank you.

All right. didn't happen. What's the doing it. Go.

We'll call the uh planning commission meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. on January 21st, 2026 in the city council chambers here in ORM. And we will begin with an invocation from Rod. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity we have to meet together here and discuss our our city and the items and issues that impact our city's plan and our planning for the future. We are grateful to live in a land where we're allowed to meet together and discuss freely our ideas and to to discuss civily our opinions on how we might be best shape the future of our city. We're grateful for the many wonderful things that we enjoy in our nation and for the many good people that we have in our city. We ask thee to bless us this evening that we'll be focused and be able to come to share our opinions and focus on the things that are important for the greatest good for our city. We ask you to bless our members who are ailing or otherwise able to attend this evening. please be with them and bless us that it will be protected and watched over this evening. And we ask this in the name of thy son Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. Okay, we will um um begin with our item 3 point item three which is our consent agenda which is item 3.1 minutes from the January 7th, 2026 planning commission. I don't they looked fine to me. Everyone else. Okay. Motion, please. Uh I move that ORM city planning commission approve the consent agenda. Okay. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. My moved and Rod seconded that we approve the consent agenda items. Rod. I I I I

Okay. Consent agenda item is approved. We will move on to item 4.1 which is a preliminary plat rolling Sands Plat A located generally at 1765 South Sand Hill Road. And I think we're in the same position again. So I'd like to just go ahead and make a motion given the fact that uh it is the same identical members of the commission where we could not reach a conclusion previously. I move that we continue this until the second meeting of February until we're able to have a makeup where we can consider this and whether accepted or rejected. So I move we continue till the second meeting of February.

Second. Okay. So Rod moved and Mike seconded that we continue this to the second meeting in February. Um Mike I I I Okay. Item 4.1 is continued. We'll move on to item 4.2, which is a public hearing. It's a text amendment. It's an ordinance amending appendix A of the ORM city code adjusting land code uh land use code number 6291, catering services to include food commissaries and make it a permitted use in the C1 zone. So, thanks. Um,

there's probably after the reading of what it is, there's not a lot to tell you beyond that, but I'm going to go through a couple of things here. Um, this text amendment request has been made by a company called Lemon and Sage. Jared, one moment. Are you the applicant? Okay. Okay. Well, we'll talk to you after staff report. Thank you.

Great. Um, so this is uh the the property that is bringing it up, this text amendment is this corner right here, uh, 15 East 700 North. Uh, it is in the C1 zone. We have a category in the C1 zone um, six standard land use code 6291. That's catering services. And while catering services use, um, kitchen services like commissary kitchens, they're not exactly the same. So the text amendment is to include the term commissary kitchens uh with standard land use code 6291 catering services. Um we talked a little bit in the staff report about the difference. This would be a commissary kitchen that would be open to different food trucks and people using it for that. They they're required by state law to have a commissary somewhere. So this would fill that need for them. Um it's a commercial kitchen basically just like a caterer would use. Um the service doesn't happen there. customers don't come there. It's not where you operate the food truck. It's where you cook the food or do a lot of the food prep for those trucks and different people would be able to use it. Um that's the plan for that that building. But that is not an allowable use in the C1 zone. So the second part of this text amendment request is to make the standard land use code 6291 not just include commissary kitchen as a term but also be included as a permitted use in the C1 zone. Uh Grace mapped the C1 zonings in the city. It's not a a super prevalent zone. We use mostly C2. Um it's the least uh prominent of the three different C zones. Um the particular use that little corner 15 east is right there. So, with that in mind, um the uses that are allowed in the um in the C1 zone, it's a it's a pretty extensive list. I included that in your staff report. Um there aren't a whole

lot of uh the 6,000 class or services. There are a few of those, but not a whole lot. 6291, as you can see, is permitted in the C2 and C3 and the other um commercial zones, but not in the C1. Uh, so that is the request that they've made. Any questions about how that would work. Um, can you go over what it is again a little more detail and what the commissary kitchen would be allows and what it does and doesn't allow.

Yeah. I'll give you just a sampling of a couple of the kinds of things it does allow. C1 zone for example um the purpose statement let me just read the purpose statement is to promote non- retail commercial uses such as offices and financial institutions as the primary use and encourage development in such a manner so as to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. So, it definitely doesn't want to see the C1 zone is not the place where you have a lot of customers coming and going. It's mostly offices and like I says, non- retail commercial uses. Well, commercial kitchen is a is a non- retail use because you don't have customers coming. So, it does kind of fit in that regard. But you have things like shaved ice, solicitors, telephone exchanges, um just going to skip ahead a few to give different ideas, insurance agents and brokers, real estate operations, um beauty and barber shops, massage therapy, commercial daycarees, commercial adult daycarees, credit reporting services, medical and dental laboratories, medical clinics, um chiropractor, accounting, uh government facilities, family and behavioral counseling, uh those kinds of things. So there are a few there's a smattering of uses that do allow some clientele coming and going. They're mostly therapies and things like that. But then beauty parlors and things. So there's not an expectation of no traffic, just low traffic. So this would be a a use for again just the kitchen services for different trucks.

Is your question specifically about what a commissary is? Yeah, I'm I'm trying to understand what's coming to the business and what they're doing. Let's talk to the advocate then. Well, I'm Yeah, I'm going to talk to I just want what the city thinks it's being. Sure. So, versus what they think it's being. Okay. So, catering So, catering, a caterer service would use a commercial kitchen in a location like this, not serve food out of the location, but stock their trucks and send them out into the world. Um, mobile trucks, mobile food trucks would do the same thing, but multiple different users would use the same commercial kitchen and then send their trucks out to to do business. No business would happen here. So, it really is the same kind of like a catering warehouse.

It's essentially a large kitchen. It is just a large commercial kitchen. So, you pre-make food there and then drop it off into trucks. Is that what you're saying? A lot of a lot of mobile food trucks from my understanding and I'll and the the applicant would probably know better than me. They do some of their prep always in a in a commissary and then they reheat things or re, you know, do finish work, finish cooking on site in the truck, but a lot of the prep happens somewhere else. And the state of Utah requires that that happen in a commercial kitchen that's got to meet safe safety standards and food safety standards and those kinds of things. So, there to be a location that they can inspect and and monitor. Okay. So, yeah, that answers that. Thank you.

Yeah. Sorry. I'm sorry to read the list to you. I thought that's what you're asking. It's too extensive for the slides, so I couldn't Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward, clearly there's a question. Thank you. That's really long.

Um, I appreciate it. My name is uh is Chris Caller. Um, and I am the owner of Lemon and Sage Kitchens. We run a uh I would like to call it a a culinary incubator, and I'll get into why that is. Um, and I'm I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but um we've done this in Springville where our first location is. We've been there since 2016. We're right on Main Street in Springville. We border residential as well as commercial uh properties there. Uh and Springville loves us. Um but a culinary incubator is a little bit of a broader term than a commissary. A commissary is a term that the Utah County Health Department or the health department usually applies to somebody who offers kitchen services to uh a mobile vendor. Uh we do a little bit more than that. We certainly do serve food trucks. Um, but we also serve as a as an incubator to food entrepreneurs and small micro businesses that like to get started. Um, and in that sense, our regulatory entities are the Utah County Health Department, which regulates caterers and mobile food vendors, um, but also people that want to sell at farmers markets and so forth. Um, we also are permitted and licensed by the Utah State Department of Agriculture, uh, and they regulate anything that goes, uh, as packaged foods. So, think of a micro business that wants to start a food business. They cannot do that from home. Um, they have to operate out of a commissary kitchen or a commercial kitchen. The commissary kitchen is a term the Utah County Health Department uses. The commercial kitchen is what the state department of agriculture and food uses. Okay. Um, our mix is about 50/50 typically. So, yes, we do serve food trucks and the services that we provide to food trucks is not just prep of the food. That's what they do and they are required to do some things in the kitchens and then they can finish it on the truck. The other service that we provide to those is a place for them to come back to and do uh their cleanup. Typically a truck does not hold a large

triple sink and they also need to dispose of gray water and other things. Um and you as a city or the county does not want that dumped on the streets or at somebody's home. So we are required to provide grease separation services, recycling, food storage in a controlled environment and so forth. Right? Those are the services that we provide to a commissary as a commissary to to food trucks. For the other side of this, the other 50% um think of really micro businesses that want to get started in the food industry. They have a great recipe, they have a great idea um and they want to get started. We typically help them from um you know before they even have thought about how to turn this into a business to the point where they are operating two to three four days a week producing an item. Once they get past that coming in more than three times a week they typically are established enough that they can build their own kitchen right and get that approved. Take that $150,000 investment to get a kitchen set up. So, some of my customers there include um uh somebody who makes yogurt, somebody makes protein bars, I have people that bottle salsa, uh those items, right? They need a commercial kitchen that's approved by the state or the county in order to produce that and either sell it as packaged foods or at farmers markets. So, that's what we do. Um, this property, um, previously was a daycare, I believe, and that's probably when it was zoned C1. Um, looking at the property, I know that the seller has had a lot of proposals for somebody taking it over and trying to get it into a C2 zoning because the rest of the entire block is C2. Everything else on that block is a C2.

C2 would set you up for a long-term sort of commitment because that's a car lot, right? Essentially. Um so the recommendation was from the planning and zoning um office to see if we can get a text amendment, keep it as a C1 and operate this under essentially a catering services line, but with the addition to be very clear that this is a com commissary kitchen. Does that help? Any questions? I'm happy to answer those. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? No. You good? I guess I have one just to clarify in my mind.

What's the address of this proposed location? Uh 15 East 700 North. Um you've got a an LDS church right next to it. I'm tracking now. Thank you. And then you have ion solar solar. This used to be Vasa Jim. Yep. Yep. Got it. Tracking even before that. I'm tracking. Thank you. And it's the same owner currently uh that owns the the ion solar property. They own the rest of the block except the church obviously. Yeah. But even this the church here is zone C2. Uh for some reason I don't know why. It's a commercial church. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Since this is a text amendment, there is a public hearing. What did you have something else? Oh, sorry. Can I go on to the public hearing? Okay. Um, there is a public So, I will open this is a Well, this Wow, I'm now I'm Thanks, Mike. Let me try again. This is a public hearing, so we will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to come forward, they can come one at a time and state your name and limit your comments to three minutes. We appreciate it. So, we'll open that. Okay. As nobody is here, we will for this we will close the public comments for that. So, okay. Discussion, questions, further Uh my my bigger con biggest concern is about the other locations because when you change a text amendment, you've now allowed it everywhere,

right? So I'm I'm concerned to make sure that that's something that's acceptable across the city cuz we could have them all over the place. Now, um I don't assume we get tons and tons of traffic uh from these. We get food trucks coming in to prep. Yeah.

Then leave. Um so yeah, I'm just kind of looking at that. We've got one back here behind Smith. Uh one next to the high school. Yeah, there's there's not it is kind of limited. um the the location that's under consideration is potentially the the mo the deepest into residential areas or the most uh adjacent. Um bear in mind too that that this is showing the C only the C1 stuff. The C2 zoning that we have all along State Street for example that that is adjacent to residential allows catering services already and a lot a lot more as well. Um, but yeah, it's

I'm more looking at the one down on the, you know, going into Provo down by the Vasa, the the Vas, the one that's the top. That's all residential back there. And, uh, both of those big areas right there are all residential. Yeah, true. Um, I just Oops, sorry.

And it is the consideration that you should make because it does change it everywhere in C1 zoning. Well, the the one south of University Parkway going down into Proville, that's Squire, that's an uh that's an office building. So, while it may impact it, the risk there to me seems to be not very large. And then across the street there's u Sierra West Diamond and some medical professional area. Not likely. What's that? It's all right next to the park. True. That's true. I guess I don't see an issue with any of these locations that I think there's already

I didn't say I had an issue. I'm just looking at him to make sure that it's not an issue. That's fine. But I'm saying I don't have an issue with it. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it's consistent with the other businesses. I think it's the kind of thing you would want more the kind of if we already have catering because catering services are already a part of the C1 or

C2. No, they're not. So the catering is being added along with the commissary. Just let me go and I should I should have probably made this a little more hit this point a little harder. So appendix A both the changes that are being requested are impacted impact only amendment or sorry appendix A because appendix A is our basically a big long matrix of all the zones listed with all the uses and then you either get an N or a P N for not allowed and P for permitted. And right now the C1 zone does not permit that 6291 catering services. The the that's the main ask is can the C1 include catering services commissary kitchen. We just want to add to make it abundantly clear that that's an allowable that's an allowable use. Catering services. We had this internal argument whether catering services already kind of encompassed what they do at commissary kitchens. It probably does. We just wanted to be super clear that that's that's what to expect if you allow permitted if you allow 6291 as a permitted use in the C1 zone.

That make more sense. Yes, I'm still okay with it. But I think I think it would be a good thing for the city. I think it's a good use for the C1's. I don't see anything that makes me say we shouldn't. So, okay, we go to the motion page. To the motion page. Yes. I move that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the proposed amendments to appendix A of the ORM city code by adding the term commissary kitchens to the existing SLU 6291 and by adding SLU6291 to the list of permitted uses in the C1 commercial zone. Okay. Do I have a second?

Second. Okay. Rod move and Mike seconded that we forward approval to the city council for the proposed amendment. Um, anyone want to make any comments or we good? Okay. Mike I I I I Okay. Item 4.2 is positive and we will forward a positive recommendation to city council. Thank you.

Okay. Item 4.3, a public hearing again for a text amendment um regarding an ordinance amending article 22-11-47H3 and 22-11-47H4 in appendix BB regarding the height of required masonry walls and landscaping areas of setbacks in certain areas of the PD34 zone.

Thank you. It appendix night. Things come in themes. So, we're going to be talking about another appendix tonight. Um, this is an amendment to the PD34 zone request. That's the university place. It involves a portion of the zone right here. Um, because it will be specific to that area um to be uh to be um most descriptive about it. It's related to the reszone application that was recently approved uh at 575 East by the city council into the PD34 zone. So, as part of the Home Depot project that they're working on, uh the Home Depot folks and Woodbury requested an a zone change to this property to bring it into the PD34 zone. When the council approved that zone change, they wanted to see a couple of different things happen. I'm going to use this slide to talk about it real briefly and then we'll move on uh to show it a little in a little more detail. But one of the things they wanted to do was give the neighbors that would still be next door to that PD34 zoning that they'd approved um and be next to the Home Depot development extra um protection from the noise or the the visibility that proximity to the to the activity there. So um they're they're proposing a 12T uh masonry wall in these locations as opposed to the 8T that's required in the PD34 zone right now. that is 221147H3. That's the wall um location. Um this is that this is flipped on its side so that you can see it better, but this is the property that was reszoned. Um there's the wall would be here. Uh this is the Olsen's property. The wall would be here. And again, it's shown in this diagram as a or in this drawing as a 12oot masonry wall. this becomes an exhibit or a part of the exhibit that's in appendix BB. Uh all the PD zones and PRD zones wind up as part of our appendix for their concept

plans and and different exhibits that show in more detail how everything works because they're kind of complicated uh development agreements basically. So this um explanatory exhibit would be added to BB to appendix BB as well just to make it abundantly clear. The other thing that is part of it is 221147H4 because again with that same conversation that night, the city council and Woodbury agreed to give over some land or create some land that would be available to the adjacent residential homes to create a little more distance to that 12t wall. Um the site planning for Home Depot is is tight. So that will reduce the landscaping strip on the other side of that wall. So there'll be landscaping and distance from this home to the wall, additional distance, but it's got to come from that same area that had been planned. So it shortens the the depth of that landscaping strip on the Home Depot side. So that's what gets modified in 22147H4. And all we have to do to accomplish that is add this language. Um, and then again, the exhibit needs to be updated as well. So that's these properties that get created in the subdivision to be able to move the wall would then be deed over eventually to the owners of these other two properties to create additional space. Does that make sense? Um so the council that was kind of their decision that night. Um the other factor that that goes into this is that the this is an RDA area, a redevelopment area. So there's a whole participation agreement that Woodbury is part of uh that governs some of these kinds of things and that participation agreement's been modified. So this would bring the PD34 into into alignment with the the participation agreement. Um so that's that's what's being looked for here as well. Those are the three components. modify 221147H3

and 4 and add this as page 3.1 to the exhibit that's part of uh appendix BB. Any questions about how that would work? The wall go across street too. Yes, this so the street is is currently being petitioned for vacation because there's right away that's it's not really in use right now but it will become part of that site. We have to vacate that to them. So the wall will move like that just like it's shown here and cross the street and dead end that that going to be 12 feet. Uh I believe it's only 12 feet in these areas next to the homes. How much it will be 12 ft all the way across. Okay. Thanks Ky

for for clarification because it wasn't here. It'll be 12 ft the whole distance. The whole distance. So it'll be 12 ft in these areas where it's shown here and along here. just it it's kind of confusing because these make it look like that's only 12 ft, but that's just where the property is created to give to the adjacent owners. Um, so the wall in all of this area will be 12 ft. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. The applicant like to come forward and say anything?

I don't know that I have anything to add, but I'm here for to answer questions. um the two uh orange parcels when we do the subdivision um that reflects all of this, those two parcels will be shown as Zephr parcels that will then be conveyed to the homeowners. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Jerry, do you have any questions? Is a curb and gutter going to be uh rounded or going to be flat the dead end or in this area? Yeah, I don't know that that I'd have to pull up the site plan to to see that. I'm sorry.

Yeah, we haven't designed that yet, but um assuming that those kinds of things would show up when we uh um apply come in for site plan approval. There was a Yeah, your buttons on and I don't see it right off, but there was a mention of a park Can you tell me what the park is going to be? We had originally proposed instead of um so the original easement

um so the original culdeac easement um what we were thinking we would do is we would just flip it to the opposite side of the street and we would put it into um the the green area and um and then when the fire department came back and said well we don't even need the culde-sac anymore because now there's only one house that we have to drive to. Um, and it's the distance is short enough that they're willing to pull in, use it as a hammerhead. Um, at that point we were like, okay, well, we could just vacate this whole thing and put a park on the um kind of on this picture plan south um area for the neighborhood to use. And the feedback from from the neighborhood was that they didn't want it. So that's why we're not doing it. So So the bark won't happen.

Will not happen. Okay. And one other question. I know that one of the neighbors south of here, the first neighbor south, requested a 12ft wall. Also, he sent a letter.

He's never heard back. Uh we did receive that letter and uh our acoustical consultant believes that the existing 8ft wall is going to do um a perfectly fine job of mitigating the sound for the rest of the uh the area along the back side of um of Home Depot. These areas are tougher because they're near the truck dock, so there's a lot more truck maneuvering noise. Um but so what our current plan is is that we will um you know their home already has the 8ft wall and our plan was not to replace any sections of the 8ft wall unless it became really obvious that we had to. So what we'd like to do uh at least for now is to leave the existing wall as it is install where the new wall has to go in. we install a 12T wall and then if there are there is excessive noise there are other things that we can do um you know to that wall to uh to try and mitigate those

and was that answer conveyed to that person can they do I say was that answer in bright vain to the family that requested it don't know I'll to check with Arty. Jerry, you mean you mean these homes down further west, right? Or further that one. Yeah. 1027 was the homeowner that requested it. Okay.

Any other questions? Okay. This for the city. Um, thank you. If if we get into a situation like we had with the uh um car wash blowers on Center Street, the Wiggy Wash. Yeah. Is it a Wiggy Wash? Yeah. Is there a remedy for these people? If the noise is untenable or is it just if Woodberry decides to be benevolent?

If if it's a if it's a violation of of noise codes, then certainly the the remedy is code enforcement. We figure out some other thing to do. Um the the 12 foot wall should I don't have any lack of confidence that the 12oot wall would deal with that having dealt with some sound issues before. Yeah, I'm talking about the the additional house on the end. But here, yeah, I don't know there if it if it violates noise codes, we could deal with that through ordinance enforcement. Um again, that that would be the only remedy that we'd have. Uh regardless,

what one other question I have is what is the plan for lighting? Uh-huh. So, there there is a lighting section in the PD34 zone. Um, they're not allowed. I don't have that stuff in front of me, but I remember from the uh the stuff that we did for the zoning ordinance uh for the zone change for the for the PD34 here. Um there's a height limit for lights. They have to show um a certain low count, low foot candle count at property lines. That would mean not light pollution across. And no direct glare is allowed either. So, if there if there are problems, like let's say that folks anywhere along that line, because this is not exclusive to what we're talking about tonight, but if there are folks anywhere in here that have problems with lighting from the site and they're getting direct glare or or they're seeing too much light in their backyards, we would deal with that through ordinance enforcement and they'd have to hood the lights further or bring them lower or whatever they need to do, but they're not allowed to directly glare into the residential. Um, so all the lights are designed to not do that. Um,

so does the lighting plan include overly bright screens? Lighting the lighting plan would the lighting plan includes hooded lights and at the at the prescribed sites? No. So, no. Yeah. But yeah, if there's problems with that, there's ways to remedy that pretty easily or pretty efficiently with with light poles and hoods. So, we shouldn't have a problem with light. We There's already a problem with light with light. So yeah, we just need to hear about that in terms of code cases so we can take a look at that. If we're if we're having issues with that, we'd want to know. I haven't I haven't heard that, but I've not been here that long. So, and really bright screens don't count as lights, I guess.

You mean the the big the big the big signs? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So, the back side of Home Depot shouldn't have any of those. Um, parking garage has got a lot of big lights right off the side signs and it's really bright.

Yeah, I I don't doubt that. I've had my issues with the big screens. Um, there are some sign code standards for this area, too. So, you can't put signs within a certain distance of that residential west property line either. So, their signage on the back side of the building would be limited or not allowed depending on how tall the building is, where they want to put it. So, yeah, I don't think you have sign light problems. It would just be parking lots that I'd be worried about at all. Uh, and those there's some good controls for that already in the PD34. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Then since this is a public hearing, we will open it up for public comment. We invite people to come forward if they have anything they'd like to say on this. And we'll open that right well open that now. and we will go ahead and close it because there is no one but applicants here tonight and we will continue on um okay discussion thoughts motions

so the way I interpret this is is we've already approved we being the city have approved to do this this is just housekeeping to cross the tees and dot the eyes to be able to execute something that's already been approved. They've approved the Home Depot. Yep. They're just making sure they they're helping the neighbors. Yeah.

Just for to be to be perfectly clear, we approve the zone change for this piece here that's part of the Home Depot plan. The planning commission hasn't seen the site plan or subdivisions yet, but those the site plan and subdivision would reflect these things here. Uh if this if this amendment's approved then site plan gets adjusted to move the fence uh further toward the Home Depot so you give that space and create the lot so they can deed over to them etc. Yeah. Yeah. But technically the zoning's been zoning in place. The concept at the high 50,000 foot level has been approved. This is housekeeping to allow to move to the next steps. Yeah, that's fair to say. And the RDA participation agreement has been amended to reflect this also. Okay. Okay,

I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. I move that the ORM city planning commission forward recommendation of approval to the city council for the proposed amendments to article 22-11-47 hotel 3 and 22-11-47 hotel 4 and appendix BB regarding the height of required masonry walls and landscape setbacks in the portions of the PD34 zone. Do I have a second? Second.

Okay. Rod move and might second that we forward a recommendation of approval to the city council on this item. Um any comments or he spoke. Do you want to speak? I don't want to speak. Okay. I think it's pretty straightforward. Do you want to say anything else or Okay. Rod. I abstain. I Okay. It's uh three. No motion. Three post. Yeah, I know. Three. I'm saying what the vote was. Three positive and one abstain, which means we don't have the requisite four. So, a no recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

We'll we'll make the uh we'll make the reports and and get ready. Thank you all. And then um yeah, do you have anything for us?

I do. Just a reminder that next Tuesday, the 27th, on the heart of downtown project, our consultant helping us with that is going to be in town and will be making a presentation to the council. We would invite the planning commission, if you're available, to come at 3:00 to the community development offices in our Ponderosa conference room. And uh the uh consultant will be there to talk about uh where we are with the plan and and it is a uh draft proposal that the council will see and and you'll be able to ask questions or still make some comments and things like that. So it's just a another opportunity for input and for you to know what's going on with this.

Okay. Thank you. And then before we journ tonight, I'd like to uh thank Rod Ericson for his services on the planning commission. You will be missed and good luck with everything. I wish you the best. And second, thank you. You're very kind. Yeah. And we think really appreciate your input and your service. And I don't abstain. I would like to on behalf of staff, thank you, Rod, for everything that you've done. We've enjoyed working with you and your uh collegial attitude and and thoughtful approach to working with us. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.

You all are wonderful people and I'm very grateful to know you and call you friends. Thank you. So this will be his last meeting and we will miss him. So with that, I think we will Do I have a motion to a motion that we adjourn? A motion. Thank you, Mike. Do I have a second for adjournment? I second it. Okay, Mike moved and Rod uh seconded that we adjourn. Rod, I I Okay, we are adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Thank you.

Thanks, everybody. The nose don't matter when you leave at time anyway.