Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

is up. Perfect. You ready to go? Yes. Thanks, B. Uh, we'll go ahead and call our work session to order at 4:31 p.m. on March 18th, 2026 in the city cattle council conference room. We'd like to thank to uh welcome the new uh members of the planning commission and we're going to start with training. Okay.

All right. So last time we did uh some training and uh two of you were new last time and we have two additional people who are new. So uh when we talk about the training today there are two main uh focuses that the planning commission has legislative recommendations and administrative uh actions that you take. Any questions since you've now had the opportunity to go through one council meeting some of you any questions about this issue? Okay. Makes sense. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, uh we won't spend a lot of time. We'll we'll kind of go through this. There's some other training that we have dealing with exparte communications, conflicts of interest that we need to go through and we'll do that. And then probably what we'll do is I would anticipate we'll have a little bit of time to go through the agenda and talk about the agenda and maybe there are some things that we can do uh or talk about what we can do to make the agenda clear and it's uh there's just tradeoffs. There's no perfect answer on how we do the agendas. Okay. So, as we talked last time, you have the your legislative function, your administrative function. The legislative is a construction hat because the the way to think about it is you're creating the law. And you'll see on the agenda later where um there will be legislative recommendations. You are making a recommendation to create the law. What should the law be? uh because there's a an item that is proposing a text amendment. So, it's taking the current law and changing it. Okay. And then you have kind of the traffic cop which in a very reductive simplified way is is on administrative items. You're either uh approving it because it complies with code or you're not approving it because it doesn't comply with law. Okay? And so just some quick examples. Uh you're the final decision maker on administrative, legislative. You you act as that advisory capacity to the council.

Uh administrative your discretion is very narrow. Follow the law. That's the type of discretion you have. It's not a lot. It's very constrained. Uh, and your decisions have to be supported by substantial evidence and that's a legal term of art. And to avoid being arbitrary and capriccious in our decisions, we have to justify uh the things that we are uh doing. Now, as a practical matter, it's when you turn down an application, administrative application where this really becomes important. You need to be able to articulate why based on the evidence in front of you. Okay? And I'll give you an example. You'll hear this all the time. Um, uh, well, the fun one that we always talk about in planning, I teach a a a planning law class at BYU in the fall in the geography department for all the urban planners coming up. And as part of the class, I used to make them come to uh, a planning commission meeting or a board of adjustment meeting because we would they could see in action some of the concepts. And one of the things I would tell them is that if somebody disagrees with a project that's coming in, almost every time, one of the things you you will hear is if you approve this, children will die. That's a it's kind of a a meme in planning circles. And one day we're sitting in there about to have the meeting and I know several of my students come in. first item, first person got up and said, "If you

approve this project, I guarantee you children will die." And I just turned around and turned to There you go. See, that's now uh they may fully believe that, but why will children die? And will children die because it's not built according to code? what is the problem? Not just the conclusion that children will die, but we have to be able to articulate based on the evidence coming coming in. You know, another thing that you'll frequently hear is uh my property values will plummet. And sometimes you'll hear a group or a board or commission say, well, you know, property values will go down. And courts have said, well, just because a neighbor with no particular exp expertise says that your property values will plummet because of this. That's really not the type of evidence upon which you can base your decision. They don't have any special expertise or knowledge to make that type of uh professional judgment. And so when it comes to administrative things, we are very constrained about what we can do and what we can't do. Okay. Any any questions for that? And as those things come up, we'll uh uh we're here to help you and talk through these issues with you.

So I do have a question. In a case like that, is it inappropriate for someone on the commission to say, "Do you have anything to support that claim?" is that I'm not trying to be confrontational to that person. That's not the point. But the point is when someone says that property values or children are going to die or you know whatever the calamity is there, is it inappropriate? And how is that best worded so it doesn't look like I mean you've got more experience at this than us. How best could you word that so that it doesn't come because it seems like we should be able to ask them that question if they're stating something to us

fact then

yeah absolutely it's probably not a good idea that your question is or more of a statement of oh yeah you know something like that but it's absolutely appropriate for the planning commission ask questions. Now the chair Meline will be running the meeting and so how it it typically will work is staff gives an introduction to the issue and then you allow the applicant to come up and make their pitch of whatever it is. Then you open it up to the public. Okay? And the public will come up and comment. And if somebody makes a statement or brings up an interesting point, it's appropriate to, you know, delve into that a little bit. And go ahead.

I was going to say kind of after public like we need to be careful that we don't start conversations with people and that's a whole other side thing. But like usually when it when people come, I'm jotting down what their points are so that we can come back and address some of those things. But I mean, yeah, it's not really a dialogue back and forth of people coming up. It's more they've got their time and then they're they're addressing things to us that obviously we then probably do need to discuss between ourselves. Yeah. And sometimes you'll get used to a number of things and you'll be like, "Okay, I know what that comment is. We know what we need to people.

Imagine with our westerly way there's a chance next to that school that someone's going to say today children are going to die if we put the access through and someone else is going to say no if we don't put the access through to the road that you know I mean I would imagine it will be about traffic. That's the new that's the one a lot you'll hear a lot is traffic that'll bring too it'll bring more traffic too much traffic more traffic ruining our little neighborhood. So hold on the questions until you need

and yeah it's appropriate if you want to jot things down and then address things afterwards too but yeah that's generally and like this isn't under administrative this is under legislative more but yeah in answering those questions. Yeah. And that's a great Now, one of the things we want to be careful about in this meeting is talking about specifics of an item that's going to come before us here in a little bit.

Okay? uh because uh this isn't noticed really to have that discussion about specifics but to have a a discussion about in principle traffic and things like that that's perfect for us to get in here about how do we handle it now you see the slide I have up this is administrative now if somebody comes up and says okay this is an administrative item The first thing is on an administrative item while it's a public meeting like this is a public meeting the public's welcome to come in the the public can be sitting here the this is on do we do it on YouTube

yeah we do this on YouTube there could be a million viewers right now on YouTube there aren't there could be in in in in planners best dreams that's what's happening we've got A million people are hanging on our every word. You're a little black. Um, we have Carl here. So, that's good enough, right? Each one watching.

So, let's say that's a public meeting, but it's not a public hearing, which means the public does not have a legal right to comment. Now, sometimes on administrative items where it's a public meeting and the public can see the people's work being done in public and know what's going on, they don't necessarily have a right to make comment as opposed to an legislative item like a text amendment where there is a a statutory right for the public to make comments. Okay. So, that's one thing we need to be careful of. Now, let's say we do an administrative context. Open it up for uh public comment. We just want to get some public insight. And and one of the things you'll see is occasionally I tend to be the heavy in the meeting. Sometimes I'll, hey, uh, quiet down. We get, it's got to be one person at a time. We got to have a record. you know, you got to be called on by the chair to be able to talk and and all of that's really true because we're recording it and broadcasting it and we need to have a complete record of what we're doing. So, even assuming we opened it up and I come up and I say, "If you approve this project next to me, it will make my property value go down." And they say, "Well, how do you know?" It's like, well, I've been a realtor for 30 years, plus I'm a PhD in economist. I This is what I study. I Everything shows clearly my property value will drop by 20% if you approve this. That's a great comment, Mr. McInn, but

the answer is so what? What code does it violate? Do we have a code that says if we we you can we have to approve this project unless it makes Gary's property be devalued by 20%. So sometimes even when kind of the theoretical concern is absolutely valid and I agree with it if it complies with code you still have have to approve it in that administrative context. Okay. Uh and so narrow discretion we're talking about that. So, it kind of comes back to that in the administrative context. Sometimes people come in and they're really mad and angry about they don't want this coming next, especially if it's uh things dealing like uh uh rehab or uses like that. That's really a difficult thing. That's one of my favorite experiences early in my career. a a uh a center for uh kids who were uh needed help and they were disabled under the law came in and people were really concerned and the next door neighbor came in and said, "Hey, we got to have compassion on these kids. They're a part of our community. They have to go somewhere." Um the code allowed it. It was a permitted use. It was administrative. and she just went down that road and I thought, "Wow, is she an attorney? What? This is amazing." And then she got the end and hit the table a few times as angry as she could and screamed, but not next to me. And you know, I get it. So sometimes people are upset, but we have

to follow the law, you know, the angry mob. But in administrative, that's public clamor. And public clamor is kind of that shorthand way of saying just because somebody doesn't like something and they're upset about it is not a legal reason to turn something down. So let's say that something is is is is a clearly within code even if there's opposition we have to approve it. Right? So that comment, how do you consider opposition if the code is clear?

So yeah, exactly. Frankly, you can't. And if you base that, if the criteria in the code is clear and you're supposed to make your decision based on ABC, and people are bringing up Q as the basis to turn it down, then that's going to be arbitrary, capriccious, and illegal because you're not basing your decision on the criteria set out in law. So in that same situation, if it's a conditional permit that they're seeking to do something, is this consideration enough to stop a conditional? Right. Because conditional is discretionary to us, correct? Or to the city council ultimately?

Well, so conditional uses come here for a recommendation. Even though it's administrative item, it's a recommendation that goes to the council ultimately. And the short answer is state law says conditional uses are presumed granted. Oh okay.

Okay. You start with the presumption of yeah this is good. Then people can come in and show based on the code and based on criteria in the code. No there will be a detrimental effect. So you start nope this is permitted. No, no. We uh we bring up legitimate issues that this can adversely impact us. We still have to have to approve it if the applicant can mitigate those. So let's say the the use is uh something and people are really concerned that well hold it this use is really loud and it's not good because what if they're doing it at 2 in the morning next to this residential neighborhood? Well, a condition to fix that could be, oh, well, you have to stop operation at 8 at night, 9 at night, 10 at night. That mitigates that issue. And so there is judgment, you know, and the traffic cop hat is kind of a little absolute, you know, but there is a little judgment and discretion.

Can I make a comment? The truth is is most of what comes before us that's administrative is plat subdivisions. things and just to understand the process before it even gets to us. You guys have vetted it what at least five or six times. It goes through a DR the development review committee committ

they literally meet every week to go through and they and they will if they see something that doesn't meet code they'll kick it out. They have traffic come in, they have engineering come in, they have all these people that are a part of it. So really if it's a true administrative item like we have a couple tonight and like we had last time once it gets to us it's been heavily vetted and so it's basically we're kind of looking at a lot of these administrative just to the final decision basically I don't want to say ro champ we are we are we are eyes on it

I have yet to find anything that what didn't meet code by the time it came here. Yeah. After four years of being here, like our staff is it's its moment in public, too. It's it's moment to be reviewed. So that verifying in public that it was that it's been vetted and checked out and we've looked at this and this. We didn't miss any issues. Yeah. You know, every once in a while we miss an issue. Go back to the drawing board and fix it and come back later. We'll do that.

Well, we had something last week. Someone brought up a fire hydrant where a fire hydrant was. Actually, that was a public comment that we allowed taken. And it actually was a moment of going, "Oh, we should double check this really fast to make sure that this is right." But it it is those kinds of things that we're looking for. And it's hard because we wear, as we're talking about here, we wear two different hats and we use them at different times. So, and I don't want to say exactly that we're rubber stamping, we are the final decision-making authority on it. We're the ones who finally say, "Yep, this is approved." And it goes it goes on in the process.

You you are in a sense exercising your oversight responsibility of staff to make sure we did the right thing. It's you know you come in did you guys look at X? Yes. Did you consider this? Yes. You know and ask us those questions. It's okay for you to ask us hard tough questions. you you should on those things, especially if it's uh a big item that the public's going to be really concerned about because, you know, they're important projects. Okay. So, now brought up some great questions. So, let's flip this now into the legislative context where we're going to create the law. And so, your discretion's really wide. Now where it was narrow and very focused based on statutory uh criteria, now it's kind of really broad more in a sense amorphous or or very qualitative uh and and a lot more subjective than the administrative I items tend to be. And the public sentiment is important. And if it could promote the general welfare and it's reasonably debatable, even though 50% of the people in the meeting or more may disagree, if it's fairly debatable and a reasonable person could could, yeah, I see how this could make sense, then it's going to be okay. So now you take that administrative item about traffic or the concern that children will die, you switch it into a legislative context with the discretion you had. Now this

they're not the angry mob. They're just, you know, our friends and neighbors raising legitimate concerns because now to turn down a project because it devalues other people's property uh values in the surrounding area. That's a really hard thing to do or to not approve in the administrative context as long as it meets code. In the legislative context, you know, we're not looking for expert witnesses. Just a reasonable person could believe, yeah, this use isn't that great for a neighborhood. Doesn't make a lot of sense. Uh I I think uh we should not have one more building on the west side. It should all be open space. I don't think we should go uh one inch higher in building on the foothills because we want to keep that view of the mountains that all you know okay what should it be that makes a lot of sense. I gave uh some similar training on this years ago in a city that they had a very strong neighborhood committee and they had what they called neighborhood chairs. So there was like 35 neighborhoods and and I explained this and one of the people in in the meeting, she said, "I have been a neighborhood chair for over 20 years and I have been constantly calling you guys, fighting you, arguing why do you ignore us, bad mouthing you to everybody because you're so unresponsive." But all of these things were these administrative items, weren't they? Like, yeah, they were. And I was wasting

my time because they complied with code. And I said, yeah, you're right. And she actually started to cry. Said, I should have been spending my time on legislative issues that could really move the needle for our my neighborhood. It's like, yeah, that's where we could have worked together because we would then be creating what the law would be. So when that next project comes in, that law is giving you the result is the project that you wished you were getting all of those years. So that's kind of the difference between that legislative and administrative dichotomy that we have to deal with uh here. Does that make sense?

Okay. Um and then you know legislative lots of different perspectives administrative legal expectation. There is no legal expect uh I mean sorry there is a legal expectation. You're vested. you have the right to have your project approved if it complies with code. Um, and that we will follow our code. If our code allows it, we follow it. If our code doesn't allow it, we don't allow it. Even if everybody says it's good, there could be a project that comes in and I could have the mayor and all council members calling me saying, "We we need this project. we have to have this project. And I'd say, well, I can't approve it because it doesn't comply with code and that I can tell you how we can the process we can go to get it to comply with code. Let's change the code. That's what what we want as a community. Uh legislative, they have no vested right. Nobody has a vested right to have the law changed or a law made to fit their project. That's where you have the most ability as a planning commission to really think about and and help shape the future of your community. This one's important to keep in mind because you will have people come up and they will act like, they will say, they will do things as if this is their right to get this done because this is their property and it's not. And it's helpful to remember, no, you don't have the right. We're deciding what's best for OR as opposed to what's best for you.

Yeah. when when they come in and I this happens, you know, at least once a month, the developer will call me and come in and they'll say, "Hey, I I've got a piece of property here." Okay, what what does the city want? What do you want there? And I say, "Well, what does the code say?" Well, yeah, I don't want to talk about the code. What do you really want there? and I say we want what the code says we want. If it's not in the code, then uh either the council's asked me to work on a plan and we're working on one, which we're not. So, we're not trying to figure that out or we haven't gone through the process. It's really a question of what do you want to propose? Well, no, no, come on, tell me. What do you want there? It's like I have no idea what ORUM wants there, you know, because we have to go through and hold public meetings. If we're going to change things, then people need to be involved and have that opportunity. And it could very well be that they love what you're doing. But I just can't wave a magic wand to help you as much as you wouldn't want me to wave a magic wand to hurt you. There's a proper process and flow to these things. Okay. So, we'll just skip uh the policy question doesn't really it's does it comply with our code? Uh and we're bound by the plain language of our code. Uh and the reason for that is, you know, a common law, you know, 250 years ago, you could do what you wanted with your property as long as you didn't interfere on a nuisance basis with your neighbor.

Very permissive. And zoning laws are delegation of that common law, right? And so uh we have to follow what the law is because the presumption is in favor of the property owner and there's case law on that. If our ordinance can be interpreted in two ways, one reasonably favorable to the property owner and one that's just as reasonably favorable against the property owner, we go with the goes to the property owner.

Okay. So legislative policy question, that's the big one. You know, there's no real hard answer for that. That's where you take a lot of time. Okay. And then this is we don't care about that. Okay. So, any questions now that some of you've had one meeting and some of you are going to have your first meeting tonight, but those concepts are still kind of hard to keep straight all of the time. And as we do more training, we'll tell you about the the whole planning process, how an application comes in and and the process that we go through and staff what we're how we vet it, how we look at things and and going through that.

Okay, Gary. Yeah. Gary, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Um on I notice on the agenda items it says whether we're a legislative or administrative body on the item and so that kind of gives us a little hint as to what we can and should be doing on each one of those. Is that correct? Yes. Where is that mentioned? Are you talking in the packets? Yeah. In the packets that come out it says where the land use authority or you know it it kind of tells you what is the staff. He's talking about the staff work that attached. Yeah. The blue ones are administrative and the the

rust ochre. I don't know what that is. Color is expert, but this color is legislative. And then on the agenda, if you look at it, the the consent agenda items will always be administrative. The action items that are listed as action items will always be administrative. And those others that are legislative will be labeled as public hearings. You can always tell what your what your role is. And we we'll generally depend we usually order it in that way. Although every once in a while we'll want to put something we want to put something that's going to be quick first. We try not to make everybody sit through three hours of public comment on something that's going to be a big generator. So but you know generally speaking that's going to be the order too. You're going to go from simple to complex as it goes and and going to that agenda. Sometimes you'll have a big check come in and it there might be a reasonzone with it, but they also have several other things that have to go with it like they're amending a plat, you know, cleaning up property lines and and all of that goes to the project. It's on the same meeting and you know, technically on the plat line cleanup don't have to have a public hearing. It's a public meeting but not a public hearing. But on the reszone portion of it, you have to have a public hearing where you allow people to comment. And so it can get mixed up and sometimes it's confusing, you know, because you'll like, well, let's just deal with the administrative technical cleaning up lines and we'll we'll reserve the public hearing on the reszone and people you people start yelling from the audience, hey, aren't you going to let us talk about this? And you know because they conflate you know there might be three or four separate applications that they have to do but to often to the public it's just one big thing and so how do you deal with that as a

planning commission the best way and after all my years I can tell you I have no idea what the best way to to do that because every every time you do something kind of good that kind of ends up being difficult. Colton. And as we're going through this, uh, we have a dinner over here for you. So, feel free just to grab your dinner and eat while we go through this. Um, because when we go into that meeting, uh, you're not taking your food there. It's harder to do up there.

Yeah, it's harder to do up there. It's probably not the best thing to be eating while somebody's talking about their specific project, but here as staff, we're used to it. So feel free to uh dig in or wait till after the meeting and put it in the fridge and get it for Okay. So um conflicts of interest as planning commission members and you'll get every year we have more formal training and we miss the formal training uh that we do as a city by a few weeks. uh we do it. So I think this is uh uh you you'll get some conflict of interest and other and open meetings training, but we're going to just run through some things quickly just to give you kind of the basis at the at the end of the day. If you think it's a conflict, uh give me a call. We can talk about it. Often it's not a conflict. Sometimes it is. So um being subject to this state law uh you have to deal with it and and so this is the the theoretical world of all conflicts. Okay, we're going to do a vin diagram here. So every conflict that you can imagine uh I live in Oram and there's a reszone. Well, yeah, that could that's kind of could be a conflict, you know, uh because it's there. But not just because something's a conflict doesn't mean it's an impermissible conflict or it's even one that you need to um uh uh disclose. So we have some conflicts

that in that world or universe of all conflicts that it does rise to the level that yeah I probably should disclose this and there I can't give you an ordinance that you can read and it'll tell you precisely every situation that you would run into. Um so ju but keep that in mind. Then there are some conflicts, they're just prohibited and and so some conflicts you require disclosure and if you disclose it um you can still act and sit on the planning commission. You know, it might be uh there's a someone an applicant's coming in and it's like, oh yeah, I know them. They live around the corner from me, but you know that that's okay. Uh I know lots of people in Oram and it's not going to affect my ability to to fairly perform my duties. You know, not a big deal. Or somebody I think we had somebody who came in to a council meeting the other night and uh they got up and made a comment about an issue. I can't remember the issue and come to find out they taught at Orm High and taught like three of the council members. Uh I took her one of her classes, you know, when I was in high school and and all of that. Uh but it didn't re it wasn't that's not a conflict that would have made anybody, you know, uh have to step down. Now a conflict now it might be a little different where it's uh yeah this has been my best friend since childhood and we know each

other very well and we go on vacation together. Now there may not be a legal prohibition where it's a prohibited conflict but it's probably a conflict that not only would you have disclosure but you might want to recuse yourself. We'll get into some more of those types of things. Is there a list of the prohibited conflicts like I'm a seller of a property and of forzoning like where do I know what is actually on the prohibited list? Uh we'll talk about we'll talk about some of the the prohibited things here in a second. Um, and and it's it's kind of, you know, a hard thing. It's like, oh, this person applicant, uh, I was their uh, real estate agent or I was their attorney or I was their something 20 years ago and I handled one transaction for them and not a big deal. Or they're coming in for a reason and it's, uh, yeah, I'm their real estate agent. If this reszone goes through, I'm handling all the listings for this project.

Yeah. Disclose that and recuse yourself. Money. I mean, if you want a quick thing, if it involves money and you making money from it or standing to make money from it, recuse. Yeah, that's the I mean, there's a lot of other reasons, but money is a very short answer. Benefits you in some other way. Yeah. Probably broader.

Yeah. And and the last slide I have in this is a third party who had no interest in what was going on was watching it and knew these things where they think things were being fair and the law was being followed. And so sometimes you may want to recuse yourself, not because there's a prohibited conflict or even one that would necessarily require disclosure, but just because it would bolster public confidence in the planning commission and that ORM city is being fair. So if somebody wants to make a disclosure when and where you make disclosures,

we we make it in there. Okay. Well, yeah. When the item is called up, you would say, "Chair, I have a disclosure I need to make." Okay. Yeah. And and it's always an an opportunity in here. Uh we have our work meeting to go over, you know, it's not just trainings, you know, sometimes we'll dig into a particular item. It's like uh boy uh what kind of uses make sense in in in a commercial zone.

Let's really analyze that and dig into that. Uh but we'll have the agenda. It'll be like, oh yeah, I notice on the agenda, yeah, this is my next door neighbor. I have to live in this neighborhood. There's no way I can I I got to go to the grocery store. I got to go to church on Sunday. I have to recuse myself.

Well, well, I would say so I haven't met many of you yet. I'm Erin from the legal department, but if if if you have a question about whether something's a conflict or whether it's something that needs to be disclosed or recused from, come ask. like you can talk to me, you can talk to Gary and we we can talk you through it and and you know and uh and in a private confidential setting and then you can do what needs to be done in the public.

Well, so today the senior living center is that's in my neighborhood and I do service there in association with my church sometimes. Does that sound like a disclosure thing? I don't think it's conflict, but yeah, it my my take on that is if it even enters your mind, go ahead and take 10 seconds before the item and just say, "Hey, yeah, this I just want everybody to know this is in my neighborhood. I frequently do service work there on Sundays and other days, but that's not going to impact my ability to deal with the issue. Fair enough.

You know, and then and then what that does is is frankly um so with staff, it's, you know, with uh planning, with legal department, with finance, everybody, what we're trying to do is make sure we follow the law. So we'll we're really going to try and make sure the technical requirements of the law are followed. But things like that uh that we just talked about doing something like that actually it just looks good. It makes the the public feels like okay yeah this is a legitimate board. this is a legitimate commission and they're concerned about these things and everything's above board because what's I have seen this in past somebody doesn't bring up something like that and then I hear later oh well they're you know they went to school together because they went to school together they went to the same high school or they're in the same scouting organiz or something like that you know that's why they voted this And so it's just good to draw that that perception out. So here are some of those prohibited conflicts. Okay. Um you can't disclose confidential information. We're not going to have very rarely will we have a closed meeting with you. I've I've been involved with two closed meetings with planning commission in 30 years. Okay. Um, you can't use your position to get special privileges. You know, don't walk into McDonald's, there's a long line and say, "Excuse me, I'm a planning commission member. I need to be at the front of the line." You know, don't don't do that.

I don't think you'd get that. You work anyway. Sorry, but you know, and sometimes there's there's weird things. I once had an experience where uh we've had on the agenda, let's say a conditional, we had a conditional use permit and uh uh it was I'm just taking a restaurant. Let's say it was a I don't know a Texas Roadhouse. They were on for a conditional use permit and I came to the meeting like this where we provide dinner for you. And guess where the dinner was from? was from Texas Road.

It wasn't Texas Road, but it was just, you know, there was no no bad intent. It was, you know, purely by accident. The person ordering it had no idea what was on the agenda and it's just one of those weird things that came together. And so we just at the beginning of the meeting said, just explained it because we just didn't want somebody going, "Oh, geez. So they bribed you. They gave you free dinner. So what you're telling me is no Apollo burger. That's the next one. Already been approved. We're good. Now if they slip you free fries, I

don't get gifts or loans for your official duties. I had a planning commission member once who was an engineer. Somebody had a ter bad project. Their engineer wasn't doing a good job. It got continued. One of the planning commission members who was an engineer got off the dish, ran, went out to the hall and gave the guy a business card and said, "Give me a call. I can help you get this project through."

So, don't feel urge to do that. You know, give me the high sign. We'll talk about it before you in the middle of the meeting run out. Uh we ended up having that uh that person ended up resigning. So probably good.

Okay. Now, but you know, you get a gift $50 or less or an award publicly presented. Uh the uh American Planning Association gives you recognition for your service on planning commission at one of their meetings. you know that stuff like that's not a problem. You go get a loan, it's an ordinary loan. Uh Eagle Mountain a few years ago, their mayor was getting below market rate loans, uh private loans from a developer who was doing business in the community.

I would suggest you don't do that. Uh there was even a I think the uh attorney's office did a prosecution that um and so where the conflict is not prohibited, you need to disclose it. We kind of talked about we had that vin diagram and if there's any personal benefit or special privilege uh for assisting somebody with business in the city let's say you have a business and you make uh I don't know what do we use all pens and we buy pens from you frequently or you sell pens to somebody that's probably not a huge conflict. But you have disclosure uh documents that we'll give you that go through all of this and you can write down if you have any business interests that are uh those businesses are regulated by the city and and we'll end up getting uh here in the next little while that information to you or you're a director or uh owner of of a business like that. So, and we'll help you with these. I'm just kind of introducing this to you just to give you some ideas. Um now or you have a personal interest or investment which creates this conflict between public duties and that personal interest. Um and so recusal often not required but always consider can be the best course of action if you ever do recuse yourself. need the das for that agenda and frankly step out of the room because you don't want the other planning commission members don't want uh my wife

is I I don't live in the city if I did or if I own property and let's say my wife came in as an applicant uh you wouldn't want me to uh as the planning commission secretary sit up there you wouldn't want me to oh I have this conflict and then go sit on the front pro like this watching what you're doing, you know, I probably ought to leave the room. It it it just protects you and it's trying to make sure things are are done well. Okay. Exparte communications. That's that's where you're having talks without the other party. And so the the theory behind that is that public discussions or the people's business should happen in public. Okay. And so it's also part of a due process and it it protects not to have exparte communications protects the integrity of the process where people have notice an opportunity to uh be heard an opportunity to uh confront or rebut comments or or things in front of them. and experte gets a little uh difficult uh and we'll talk about that here in legislative and administrative contexts. It also leaves undue pressure on planning commission members. So exparte communication. So like in the legislative context members we talked about you're making a recommendation to the council. So there may be a reasonzone coming up and it's a controversial reason in the community. Everywhere you go, go to the gym, you run into somebody, hey, you're on the planning commission. You know, I

don't and they want to get into it and really talk about those that issue. um you know in the legislative context you're making a recommendation to the council and these things conversations are happening prior to the hearing. One of the perceptions can be is that you've already been listening or talking to people. Sometimes developers might want to call you on a project coming in or a neighbor who whether they're for it or against it might want to call you and talk to you about that. It can give uh an impression that your the decision's already been made. You've been talking with people about it. Yeah. For I could talk amongst members of the commission or the staff, right? outside or or or or not? Well, short answer is yes. However, having said that, if you had a question about a project and you wanted to call me and ask me about it, my guess is your question, uh, if you had that question, I'll lay muddy. somebody else on the planning commission had that question or the public may have that question and so it it would be good to talk about oh hey I had a question on this item I called Gary and this is what we talked about so now everybody has the benefit of that now legislative items are a little different you're making a recommendation you're not making the final decision and so people talk to you so it's not that you necessarily really can't talk to people uh about that. It's

kind more of the perception issue and how do you deal with that and because people bringing up uh we're at time. Yeah, we're at time and I want to say something before we go to um but just to go on with that, we have to watch the numbers. We're together talking about specific items. Three three or more of us can't be together. Well, more than three of us can't be together at one time talking about something dinner with

Yeah. Yeah. Like three of us could go to dinner and we could sit there and chat, but we really should be chatting about I but we can have conversations about it. If you're like, "Okay, I'm really confused. What's going on in this area? What's the history around here?" We can have some of those conversations. But he's right. There's a lot that probably should come out in the meeting and be discussed there as well too to make it clear that we're having these discussions. So, but and we can get more into that a little bit later or we still have some more training to do on

Yeah, but don't be afraid to ask questions and I even in there if I know this is a lot confused if you're unsure what's going on please just say hey chair hey Meline I've got a question about this and kind of along those lines I just wanted to briefly um talk about decorum in the in the meetings and um meeting management a lot of times we are the first time people have come and interacted with local government. We'll be the first people they ever interact on these issues and how we interact with them, what they see from us will set a lot of tone for them. And that's been really helpful to me, keeping in mind that I mean, they're scared to be there, too. They're trying their best to be here and come speak to us. And so, how we respond to them, I think, says a lot about we represent Worm. um we represent ourselves as neighbors and friends and and the community and that that's a real big part of it. Also, you know, just I know it sounds kind of basic, but let's watch what we do while we're on the dis. Try not to be on your phone unless it's like absolute emergency. Like, let's stay off our phones. Let's pay attention and interact to what's going on. And if you would like to make a comment, I am constantly looking to both sides. If you would like to make a comment, please. We don't have buttons anymore, do we? Like, please let me know.

Yeah, just kind of raise your hand. Raise your hand subtly to me and I will keep track of it so that we aren't just jumping in so I can maintain order of what's going on. Conversations with the public happen through the chair. Yeah. And and you know I had a planning commission member once somebody from the public would get up and say something they'd go just jump in. That's ridiculous. How could you know and it's like I I don't know how many times I had a conversation with him about don't argue with people that's not the role.

We've had some of that in the past. It does happen. You'll get people in the audience who want to say things and I have to kind of be like, you know, we're not taking comment right now. We can discuss this in a minute. Like, so any questions again, just let us know. Let me know and we'll go from there. So, we will adjourn and get ready for a meeting at 5:30. Thanks, Gary. Yes. Thank you all. Yeah. and feel free to give me a call or email me um on on these issues. No problem.

Thanks. Do I stay on this session or will there be another one? Carl, are you asking? Are you gonna re are you going to just keep them on? Yeah, stay on the Zoom. Great. Thanks, Rebecca. Is it okay if I stay on, too? Or would you like me to just watch on YouTube? Oh, Rebecca's not in here. It's whatever you would prefer, Quinn. You're okay to stay on. It's no problem. I I I'll stay on because I'm not a member of the council. I won't make comments during the meeting, but I appreciate um listening and thank you. Thanks,

speaking to you. I'm Jared and you're Jeff.

Okay, good. Got a Sharpie. That or I took someone else's dinner. Yeah,

Michael. Welcome. Thank you. Aaron, nice to meet you. Good to meet you.

Well, are you ready for round two? I am. We're going to get this sorted out here. It just takes me a minute to transition everyone over. So, Grace, I meant to tell you you did a great job last time on the Apollo burger. Did I? Yeah, you did. Okay. Take this part in or the second to last. Well, there you're here. Yeah. Sorry, I'm hurry.

Right. We will call this planning commission meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. on March 18th, 2026 in the ORM city council chambers. We will begin with an invocation by Micah Ladle. Heavenly Father be with us during this discussion. So ask us.

Thank you. Before we start on business, I'd like to extend um thanks to Mike Carpenter and Jim Hawk for their uh longtime service on the planning commission. Um, we have two new planning commissioners. Jeff Reeves and uh Jeff's that way. Jeff's on the end and Michael Ladle is over there. And so we have gotten five new planning commissioners in a month. So this may we're working through and everyone's doing well, but this may be a little more it's going to take a little bit of getting used to here. So um uh before I start the consent agenda, we have one member of the planning commission also who's new attending via Zoom. So after we do our votes, I will call his name for him to give his vote. So we will begin with items well on item three which is our consent agenda items which is just one which is approval of our meeting minutes from March 4th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Do I have comments or would anyone like to go to motion on that?

I'll motion that we move to approve the agenda items or the minutes for the previous meeting dated 3426. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second. Okay. Britain moved and Darren seconded that we approve the consent agenda items. I was like Jeff, do you Yeah. Yes. I I I I I I Carl I

our consent agenda items pass. We will move on to item four which is our administrative items before the planning commission. Um this is where Yeah, these are Yeah, we'll begin with item 4.1 which is a preliminary plat for Whit Stone Plant A located generally at 710 West 2000 South in the R8 zone. And we'll begin with Jared. Thank you.

Thank you. Um as you said, this is the uh the preliminary the preliminary subdivision plat for Whit Stone Estates. Uh this was before the planning commission and the city council. uh last year uh for a zone change. This is the property. It's about 14.18 acres. Um just to give you an idea where it is other than the address, 710 West and 2000 South, you have 2000 South out here. The front rear rail line is here. The other rail is up here, uh I-15. Um and this is Payton Crossing. And this used to be the Wilkerson Farms. Um the property is now in the R8 zone. As I said, it was reszoned fairly recently. the map hasn't been updated to reflect that. So, you're still seeing that green that was OS5 before it was reszoned. So, this was the the zoning when it was Wilkerson Farms in active um use. Uh it's now R8 like the property here to the west. Um this is a subdivision plat. Um as properties come through for subdivisions, the planning commission is the the land use authority for the preliminary plat. If the planning commission approves the preliminary plat, it does go through one more iteration with technical staff to make sure that the final plat is something that can be recorded, meets all the the technical um technical requirements. It's been through most of that process already. When it goes through preliminary, a lot of the work, the heavy lifting is done at preliminary. It does actually get one more just for for full disclosure. It gets one more review before it goes to myar. That's a funny material that will survive the apocalypse and gets recorded forever. um nothing can be built on the property. We won't see building for homes or anything until that uh property is recorded or till the um the roads are in and that kind of thing. So, there's still time that will pass before you see building on the site if the subdivision's approved. But this is the preliminary plat. Uh it is 50 single family residential lots. I know we said 51, but that's because one of the lots is listed as a is a drainage um basin, a retention

basin. I'll talk about that in just a moment. So, there are 50 building lots for single family residential homes. As I said, this is R8 zoning. That means that no lot is allowed to be less than 8,000 ft². There are a couple of exceptions to that, but none of them are happening here. These are all the smallest one is 8,151. The largest lot in this project is 20,888 ft². So, it's quite a big difference, but you can see just because of the nature of this triangular piece, you get some odd shapes um once in a while, and you can't quite get a lot of uniformity to those lot sizes. So, you have a difference there. A couple of things just to point out for interest. Um, and these are probably familiar to folks from the the zone change hearings as well. We did talk about this in a concept plan. Uh, and this this subdivision does kind of follow the the concepts that were presented when it was reszoned. There are these are all public dedicated rights of way. These are all going to be public streets that will serve all the lots. All the lots front on one of those public streets. There are a couple of different um sizes of sidewalk because of a future trail connection. And then this sidewalk out here on the 2000 South is a minor arterial. So the sidewalk situation is a little different. And the double frontage lots out here where they have the these lots will face this new street 1975, but they'll have a backside that's also facing 2000 South. So that sidewalk is a little different. I'll show you that in a moment. Um, this is a standard cross-section of an ORM, what we call a sublo street. All of the streets in this subdivision except for 2000 South that's already existing are sublo uh which is a this standard rightaway cross section. So 28 ft of asphalt curb and gutter. There is an 8ft planter and a 5ft sidewalk and that's what you're seeing right in like this area here. That's what's indicated there. This larger sidewalk and larger plant planter strip are the trail connection. So through this subdivision, we'll run a sort of a non-trail trail connection to connect Lakeshore trails to trails further up

east in ORM eventually. Uh that's a concession that they made as a as developers to help us get those trails connected eventually. So we got crosswalks to serve those that are wider as well. Uh and that's a 10-ft sidewalk and a 7ft planter. And then out here, the third the third crosssection is this uh sixoot sidewalk and sixoot planter on the Archerial Street. There'll be a a sorry a solid m sorry a solid vinyl fence on that perimeter along 2000 south and then on the north perimeter as well. I'm going to go back a slide here on the north perimeter there'll be a vinyl fence here but along this rail corridor this will be a masonry fence 7 ft to try to get a little more um sound attenuation for those lots. Um that brings me to this detention basin. It's actually I'm sorry retention basin that's got to be a little bit larger to handle all the drainage from all these lots and these roads coming down into this. Uh it'll be held in private by an HOA that will be part of this subdivision. So there'll be an HOA formed. It's one of the conditions of approval. Uh we do have a few on this particular preliminary for you. One of them is that we need an HOA to handle the maintenance and um and the management of that storm water retention basin. And the other has to do with utility provisions. We have some regional utilities going in and we'll need an agreement. Our engineering division has asked for an agreement with the developers about upsizing of of pipes and things like that. They're still working some of that out for the final, but before that final is recorded, the developer agreement will be in place uh to make sure we get the right sizes that we need. They know what they need to do for their project. We're still working on our end. So, when that's arranged, that's one of our conditions as well. And just to to illustrate those, uh the first condition that we're suggesting if this is approved um would be that it meets all of our city zoning and and subdivision ordinance requirements. Second, that they'll work to get that developer agreement that I just described. And then third, that they'll have that

homeowners association recorded uh and ready for the uh for the subdivision there. Have any questions for staff at this point about this project? Thank you. Any questions, Britain? Is that HOA going to be responsible for that vinyl fence on the street as well? On the street, those the fence would probably be maintained by the individual property owners in that case. But the the main purpose of the HOA, they could have it do anything they wanted aside from that retention basin. What we're requiring it for uh as a city, what we would be looking for is just the maintenance of that storm drainage basin. Anything else they could do, but the basin we have to have for sure.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or staff? I have more of a general question um that applies to this but maybe others. Is there anything in city code that requires with a certain number of homes that go into a subdivision that there is a playground or a park or is that

that's a great question. Um in in certain instances yes uh when we're doing planned developments and things in a standard subdivision there is not and this is a standard RA subdivision but it's a great question. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and say anything? That's up to you guys. So, okay. All right. So, since we are the uh since this is an administrative item, we're the final uh the deciding people. Wow, I am like really getting off to a great start tonight. We're the final decision on this one. um if there's anything code violations or anything anyone's considered. I This one looks pretty This one's been vetted a lot. So, we can move to motion or we can have further conversation if anyone has any more questions. Okay, then let's move to motion. Do I have a motion on item 4.1? We're all afraid to push the button. I move that Oram City Planning Commission approve the preliminary subdivision for Whit Stone Estates at 710 West 2000 South in the R8 zone subject to conditions 1 to three as outlined in the staff report. First, the applicant shall file a final subdivision application meeting all requirements of ORM city zoning and subdivision ordinances. Two, that the applicant shall work with city engineering staff to reach a developer agreement for the installation of utilities. And three, that the applicant shall prepare and form a homeowners association for the maintenance and management of the storm water retention basin. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Yes. Okay. Jeff sent uh can you say you second it? I second it. Okay. So Susan move and Jeff seconded that we approve the preliminary subdivision for Whit Stone Estates. Okay, we'll go to vote. Micah it approve. I I I I I Carl I unanimous that item is approved.

Move on to item 4.2 2, which is a plat amendment for Berkshire Plat U located generally at 1469 South 1020 East in the PD18 zone. Jared,

thank you. This is a a plat amendment. So, a little bit different than the uh than the subdivision, but amending a plat is very much like doing a new plat in many many ways. In this particular instance, there are two lots involved. Uh the the the applicant owns this home and owns the vacant lot behind it. It's in the PD18 zone. That's a special residential zone called residential estates. Has a few different requirements, but none of them are really than regular R12 or R8 zones. Uh, one of them being that they're larger lots, they allow taller fences, um, have greater setbacks, things like that. None of them are really affected by this particular request. What the, um, the, uh, the owner would create a 1.26 acre parcel by combining the two. um of particular interest is that it creates um what we just talked about on white soda estates a double frontage lot out of two regular lots. Double frontage lots can be a little bit problematic in that they um they're not great ideas unless they can be avoided. There are three instances in our code where we make findings to say it's all right to have double frontage lots. One of them I'm going to go ahead and just zip right back through to a slide from the previous deck. Okay, one second. One of those instances is where you have long arterial streets and you you want to control um for traffic control. You don't want 16 driveways coming out on that road. So traffic control is one of the instances. One of the other instances is when it can create um a better a better aesthetic situation. In this particular case, what the owner would like to do by purchasing or by combining these two lots is to uh do a a landscaping plan for a a pool and some other improvements in that second lot as a large backyard. Um what we are looking at is the potential of creating um landscaping here along 1080 East. That is I getting that right? Maybe 1080 East if I'm getting that right. I can't remember.

1020. Thank you. It's mislabeled. Sorry. 1020 east here. This would be fence that's required when we do double frontage lots. And if the planning commission makes a finding that this will improve the aesthetics of the area, then it can it can meet that requirement and be allowed to be a double frontage lot. Um so what we've asked for is that there be a development agreement associated with this. If it's approved for its amendment, they'll file and record against the property development agreement that will tie them to this landscaping plan and the gate uh and the fencing. that's that's supposed to go in. Um, does that make sense? Kind of buzzed through that. That is what we're suggesting if it's approved. Um, so we've listed those conditions as well that it would uh maintain that rear access per the submitted plan and that they would install the landscaping and enter that development agreement to make sure it stays that way uh recorded against the property. So if they sell, the next owner knows they've got to maintain that as well. Any questions for staff about Birkers

or Birkshshire? I have no idea if I'm saying that right or wrong. Going to do the British way or the uh more functional is when we're motioning, do you want us to read all three of those explicitly? Please, if you don't mind, I know it's So, I do have a question. Um the level of maintenance that's required ongoing is um is what are the standards for that? because I've seen these uh lots like this with double act, you know, double frontage where the the non-use portion becomes a little bit of a eyesore, right?

Yeah, that's a that's a great question and that's why the the language that we've um used in the development agreement is just the the maintenance in good condition. Um that's a a term that we use in general in the city when people let things go to weed, don't take care of them, we'll we'll call them out on that on that kind of thing. So, we would expect it to stay in good in good shape and live materials like it's shown on the plant.

I don't know if that answers your question or not, Commissioner. No, it it does. And I just as a quick comment, this is Mr. Maddingley's property if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Just as just as a disclosure, um we were neighbors before, but haven't been neighbors for about a decade or so. But um I do know Tai. Well, you you wanted to stay neighbors. He's going to have a pool now. No, no, this is this is previous home. So, yes. But yeah, that would be great if it were the one now. So, thank thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Would you like to say anything or you're good? Okay. If you don't want to come forward, it's fine. So, Can you if you're going to say something then please do come forward. Yeah, we it has to be recorded. So on the record wherever you are.

Yeah. So I think it's important to note that this is a PUD and a gated community and so the gates are always closed. So this isn't like an access road onto center street or the parkway or something. So, a really key component as well as the fact that the HOA requirements for landscaping and upkeep are more rigid than ORM cities. So, uh and the HOA's already approved all of this. Thank you.

Does anyone have questions for the applicant or we good? Okay. Um Okay. Any further discussions on this? Any questions? Okay. Then we can move to motion on item 4.2. Go ahead.

I will move that the Yorm City Planning Commission approve the requested plat amendment for Birkshire's Plat U subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant shall construct and maintain the rear access per the submitted landscaping plan. Two, the applicant shall install landscaping in the area along the frontage of 1080 East per the landscaping plan and shall maintain it in good condition to meet the requirements of section 22-14-13B and D. Uh that does say 1080. The agenda says 1020. I presume that we know what it is. The applicant shall three. The applicant shall enter a development agreement to ensure the maintenance of conditions one and two.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Darren moved in and Britain second that we approve it uh item 4.2. We'll go to vote. Uh Jeff. Uh yes. I I I I Carl I.

Okay. Item 4.2 is approved. Okay. Okay, we will move on to item uh to agenda item five, which is our public hearings for uh several things. We'll begin with item 5.1, which is Westerly Way, which is a text amendment and reszone. It's a request to reszone the property located generally at 1875 South Geneva Road from OS5 open space to PRD planned residential development and to amend a appendix KK site plan farm haven to include the subject property. Jared,

thank you. And some of that introduction bears a little explanation, I realize it. So I'll run through that if that's all right. This might look a little familiar. That's because we just looked at the preliminary subdivision plan for Whit Stone Estates, which is right here. uh Geneva Road 2000 South. Um this is um this is a uh the Autism Academy, Utah Autism Academy. This section right here is a previously approved PRD. A PRD stands for planned residential development. Um that allows some differences in what we would normally do for for uh residential zoning. Uh this one was called the Farm Haven Cottages. Um it's on the books right now. What happens is we we reszone a property to PRD and then a site plan is associated with that and that binds the property as well. So there aren't just a bunch of rules in the PRD. There is a site plan associated that must be developed and that site plan is housed in section appendix KK of our ordinance. So they're all in there. If you ever want to look through all the site plans we ever approved, go through and check out appendix KK. This is um Farm Haven. this property when Farm Haven was approved was not available um and has become available now to the applicants that got a Farm Haven approved and so they've uh asked for a reszone of this property also to the PRD and a modification of KK which is the site plan of Farm Haven to include it. So if that I hope that makes makes sense. Um you can see that better in the zoning map. Maybe this is the PRD zone. You can see that. And then this is that OS5 zone that it would be moving from. And again, the autism academy which is in the professional office zone. The um existing farm haven PRD subject property there. This is the general plans land use map. Um that's different than the zoning map. It just guides kind of what the zoning ought to be. It does call the subject property out in our general plans land use map uh as low density residential southwest. Um the

southwest is a subcategory of low density residential that allowed for PRDS. Uh specifically the um Westerly Way PRD plan would rename it from Farm Haven to Westerly Way. That's their plan. If they're approved, uh it would go also the other modification is not just including this new property in it, but also going from cottages to twin home plans. Um, I wanted to take just a second and just for the record and to make sure everyone understands because it's not necessarily clear from the the concept drawing, uh, twin homes are individually owned homes. U, duplexes would be one lot with two units on it. One person has to own that. Twin homes are individually ownable. Um, so these would be you own the line the the lot that your twin home is on and the twin home itself as well in this configuration. This particular plan um also includes this this property goes all the way out to Geneva. Uh there's a large storm drainage retention basin out here uh to serve the needs of the additional parking that would be provided for the autism academy on this property and for the other uh the lots and the streets coming out of this um out of this project. Uh so it would be shared between the two. Um there's space in here for an amenity of some kind. We talked about that. There's a pavilion up here that's uh in use for the um for the project as well. Um and there are three different parking areas throughout the project. I think I have a close-in shot of that, but I wanted to quickly show you as well just in in contrast. This is the existing farm haven plan that you would see in appendix KK. Again, it doesn't include this is the subject property that at the time was zoned O5 and still is uh but was not available. So, you can kind of see that similarity there. Um, a couple of things about the project. It would be 44 proposed twin home lots if approved. Uh, it would also be served by ORM's standard street cross-section, that same one we talked

about with the 5ft sidewalks and the park strips, uh, etc. 28 ft of asphalt curb and gutter sidewalk. Uh, but then again, these extra parking spaces are because of requirements for uh, PRDs to have additional parking. Um, so there are 39 guest parking spaces in three different areas throughout the project as well. Uh, these are all two-car garages, 20 foot deep driveways as well. So, parking shouldn't be a problem based on our code standards. Um, there is a stub road into Whiteststone Estates for access and there is a stubbed road into uh Payton Crossing as well. uh that was shown previously on their uh their plan as well as a future possibility if that property developed. Wasn't necessarily assumed at the time that they would be the ones developing the property, but that's the connection there. This is a an access that will take you all the way down to Geneva, but it's not a principal access. It's a secondary access for emergency services and to provide additional traffic circulation when it's needed. Uh but most of the traffic circulation would happen out through the whit stone estates and through patenting. Um there is a 6ft solid solid perimeter fence requirement in PRDS as well that needs to be part of this consideration. Uh we don't have a lot of grade changes. Um that shouldn't be a problem as well. Um they do show elevations. These are the elevations they're proposing. Um the front elevation, the rear elevation. We did note that rear elevations are required to have 60% of the same kind of materials, either cultured stone or brick or something like that. So 60% will need to be added to the rear elevation as well. Uh kind of mirroring the front really. Um they are singlestory homes. Um they are single stories with basements. So um trying to think if there's anything else I need to tell you about the elevations. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you, Jared. Any questions for staff at this time, Susan? I do have a question. Um, I noticed on your concept plan that it said the private parking lots need their own drainage system. What does that entail? Well, on the um so the the parking lots themselves, sorry, go back to this one. The parking lots don't need their own drainage system necessarily, but they they will drain. The streets will drain storm drainage, storm water. Streets will drain down to this basin. That's okay. I tapped that like it was a normal thing, but I'm going to slide shift. Sorry, I saw a little blue writing that said it needed its own drainage system, and I didn't know what that meant.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's a comment from our that's a comment from one of our reviews in the DRC. We were talking earlier about development review committee um if it's got its own. The comment was we needed to understand whether it was going to serve both or whether it was going to have its own. Gotcha. But that's they're going to be for both. There's already some storm drainage on the existing site. some additional would be created by this. And the question was, is that is the storm water from this new parking going to flow into the old system here or the existing system here or into the new basin? It'll flow to the new basin. So, there'll be some cross agreements between the the residential portion of the and the autism academy. Okay. Thank you. Darren, did you have a question?

Yeah. Um, just to try to understand a little bit of the terminology, you said this used to be the plan was originally for cottages. Is that the same thing as single hand family or what does that mean?

No. Yes. Yes. And no. Sorry, that's a great question and I I'll do that. So, call me out whenever I do it. The cottages, I think they called them cottages. It's not a technical term, but they were on smaller than regular lots. So, the lots that the cottages were placed on were like 5 a half thousand ft or something less than we normally do. So, they were sort of closer together, that kind of thing. But, they weren't on common property. They were on their own lots as well. So they were single family detached for all for all intents and purposes. Yeah, they were single family detached small lot residences. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Um on this map we're looking at right now, it talks about PO zone. What is that? Professional office.

So the zoning where the uh the zoning where the autism academy is is is the PO zone. It's not in the PRD. I think that's everything. Yeah, I had one more question. uh the paragraph that we looked at talking about the staff report, it said that there should be maybe some discussion about shifting the usage cuz you go from a uh the zone that it was before, let's see, it was an OS open space, which is one home per 5 acres, and now suddenly we're at 5.5 homes.

That's a pretty dramatic increase in change. It is a big shift. And is that a discussion that's maybe that's a question for you that's appropriate for us to have you here. We should have that discussion and I think we will as we okay as we go through and get public comment to absolutely thank you. Yeah. But no it's a great question and we'll come back to it. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Carl, do you have any? No, I I don't have any. Thank you. Okay. So, just to confirm, we're going to be matching the zoning. It's just right above it, right? So that Yes. So

make that clear. That's already PRD next to it. So we're we're going to be have to extend it further down. This is PRD zoning. Yeah, that's exactly right. This is PRD zoning. This is actually R8 zoning like the like the property here. And this would extend down into this. Jared, off of that question, the PRD was was approved with a certain zoning. Are they maintaining that zoning in the PRD part and we're just adding units to the south or are we changing the density overall? We're changing the density overall. The cottages were single family. There were 20 something of them. We're at 44 twin homes now including the new portion, but it does increase the density that was proposed in the original BRD. Yes. Okay.

What year was that uh PRD approved? That's a great question. I want to say 20 after. No. My question is, have you ever seen this before? No. Then it was before you came on because it's been on since it's been sometime in the last four years, but before you came on. So, probably about 3 years ago. Okay. I mean, the applicant might be here and be able to 23. 23. 23. Yeah. Three years ago. So, okay. Good questions. Thanks. One more question. Yeah. Sorry. Can I just ask one more question about access onto Geneva Road? That was there before and now it's not. Okay, I just want to clarify that. Okay, that's their proposal would would change that. Yes.

Okay. My question is a staff related question regarding that is that other than making saying it has a fire lane that they can come through. Is that wise?

Um that's a it's a good question. We have with engineering, we have transportation engineers. they've looked at it that there was an extensive uh traffic impact study done for this was updated in February this year. Um it looks at all the circulation from buildout to 5 years after buildout and doesn't show impacts that need any kind of special mitigation at any of the intersections um on 2000 or on Geneva. Um so it's not necessary to Geneva know. Um whether it's a good idea or not, I couldn't tell you. That's because that's somewhat Yeah. I am. And are they going to barrier it other than for emergency services or is that an applicant question?

I believe it's I believe it's some sort of access gate. They'd have to answer that for you. Thanks. You know, I did have one question. Now I look at at this layout. We also are we considering a change um on the high density housing on the other side of Geneva Road. We're considering another piece up there too in a separate item at a later time. Isn't that correct? Um I'm not sure. Okay, it's a good question. I'm not sure that we are.

Okay, it seemed like we had another one on the other side of Geneva Road that was that had been either looked at or had been tabled. Anyway, that that's just more curiosity question if we're going to be looking at this area again. This is the second piece in this area. So, it's kind of it's an interesting process, but yeah, thank you. Thanks. Okay. If there aren't any more questions from the commission at this time, I invite the applicant to come forward and talk if they'd like to. I do have a question. I mean, I clearly have one question at least for you. So, welcome back. Hi, I'm Trisha Nelson.

Hi. So just one of the questions I already had if you don't have anything else you want to add at this point that is there the intention to block off between the road coming in from the autism academy into yeah it will be a gate for emergency purposes. So all ingress and ingress and egress will be through the two other roads through either white stone when it gets built out and through Payton's cross after extensive discussion with the city and recommendations that way. Yes. Any other questions for the applicant?

So one quick question. So that uh there is no uh required parking outside of the gate for the uh twin homes. That little area that doesn't have Yeah, that right. Yeah, that area right there. You mean this this part wouldn't be outside the This part is outside the gate or inside the gate. Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if it was this is this is accessible to the project and this is not Yeah. Okay, perfect. That that was my question. Thanks so much. Did I get that right, Trisha? That's correct. Yeah. Um, does the traffic report that was done include the impact that Whit Stone is going to

Good question. Yes, it does. It it it included Whit Stone and it included the properties across 2000 South in Provo as well. Nice. I forget the name of that project, but it included that one. Whit Stone and and the new proposal here. That's what it was updated in February to do that. Great. Thank you. So, I'm going to ask kind of a hard question because I'm like the only person who was I know. Hi. I remember you. Welcome back. Um, when you came before us before and talked about this, the intention that we were told about going for higher density was to have it be a place for the autism community to be able to find housing. Is that still your intention or is this becoming a subject?

No, that is absolutely the intention. Always has been and it's it's a very important passion project for us to have services in an autism intentional autism friendly community nearby our resources. That's been the um and just to specify the land is owned by the nonprofit. There's not any money that is derived from this project stays in the nonprofit. This is not a this is not a personal interest project from the financial side. This is definitely a personal interest project from the autism community side for sure. Yeah. Just wanted to check that was like

I appreciate that. I mean before that had been a real driver for what was going on and so suddenly it's totally different and more more homes. So thank you for clarifying. Sure. Yeah. Along those lines, I'm just this is a question I don't know the answer to. Is there a way to limit who purchases those homes? If you're new to marketing the a the autism community, I think over 55 communities, you can't really do that anymore, per se, right? Do you have to is there a way to target? And so that I'll just go with that and let you answer.

That's a that's a great question. And is there a way to target um potentially the sales of them? um by our by our distribution materials and our understanding of what the community means. We in we intend to produce an HOA that is an autism friendly community. So the people that purchase the homes are aware of the of the intention of the homes. But as far as um requiring someone to purchase the home, have someone with autism live there, we are, you know, we have to manage manage with federal law that says that this would make it a group home institution setting and and we can't do that. So, we can't restrict who can buy the home. Um, but one of the Yeah, I I guess if you have any other questions,

but it so it'll be blatantly obvious that it is designed for Yeah, there will be an HOA that specifies training component, a a service component, the adjacency to our location as an academy, kind of what the expectations are. And there's lots of as we've met with uh legal about HOA rules and what we can do. We have to follow specific guidelines, but that is certainly the intention is to have the HOA be responsible for make making sure it's an autism friendly community.

Any other questions for the applicant mission? Is there plans to put a a signal at all anywhere in this area to to help regulate traffic or No, that I can probably answer that. Uh the traffic study didn't call for that. Um it didn't find that any of the that any of the intersections were impacted by the addition of these different homes and the different projects that we mentioned that were part of the study to anything less than a level of service C C or C plus, I forget. So that wouldn't warrant the traffic signals at this time. So the um so is that 800 west that's going to that would be rated a C.

I don't know if that one I can't remember if that one's a C or not, but the lowest one was a C and that was only at peak times. So other than that they function at B's and and better. Um that's not to say that they always will. That can change in the future. Could you explain for the commissioners what the is for road?

Absolutely. So level of service is how they measure the functioning of intersections and roads and it's based on how long you have to wait at an intersection. How long it takes to make a movement through an intersection um based on the volumes that so they generate they use different models to say this is how much traffic is going to be generated by this many units. And then as those as that traffic moves through at different times, peak times and off times through intersections, they grade those intersections and how long it takes traffic to move through those and if it's backing up past a critical point, etc. And they get a letter grade A, B, C, D, and E. And anything D and lower is a fail. So, and when they when you have an intersection that's going to fail or going to fail 5 years or so down the road from its inception, then you want to do traffic measures other than like right now on Whiteststone, for example, um the the traffic measures that are going to be taken have to do with striping in 2000 South and a median to control turning in and out of that subdivision. That's all that was warranted by the traffic study and this one didn't impact it any further than that. So

Susan, just one more question. I just a clarifying question. Sure. So all of the parking that it was going behind the school and to the south and the proposed PO zone. That's great. All of that parking will be entering and exiting off of Geneva Road. And the subdivision that is proposed that will be going down 8 West and the other Yeah. cut over and down through. That's right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that none of that traffic is going to end up in the neighborhood or down. It would have to get through the same gate. So, yeah. Hey, thank you. Thanks.

Hey, since this is a public hearing, we will open for public comment. If you could come forward to the podium, state your name, and limit your comments to three minutes. Um, we will go ahead and open for public comment. My name is Pamela Moose. I live on 800 West there in Payton's Crossing. And my only question slash concern is not having access to Geneva Road and forcing all of that traffic through on in front of my home. I'm a grandma. I don't even have grandkids that come visit me. So, it's not me. It's the little kids that that's just they're always out there in the street playing. And then also, if I remember correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the new neighborhood that's coming in on to the west of us will only have one road that has true access to 2000 South because of the railroad tracks. Yet, they have like one intake, but they can't turn left. So all of those if it's if I understand correctly a lot of that traffic will have to come down to 800 west and to to feed out onto 2000 South then to if they want to go to Geneva wrap around that way. That's my only concern is not having a road to Geneva. Just big question mark. I understand there's the traffic study and all that stuff but I but when you know practical with the little kids playing in the road all the time and plus anyway big question mark in my head that's all thank you and we will address that after public comment

okay I have I have um can the can everyone hear me over there yeah barely You're s okay. Um there was a phone uh someone called in by phone with a comment. So I just wanted to make sure that this was expressed to the commission. Uh this was by Hayden Neabut uh about Westerly Way. Um and he lives at 1875 South Geneva Road. Uh he said that he is in favor of the project. He thinks it's really cool. I, you know, I know that it's kind of thinks it's kind of cool and he's proud to live in a community that's doing what they're doing. So, that was his comment and he wanted to share that with the planning commission. Thank you. Okay. Would anyone else like to come forward? Okay. Okay. So there no further public comments then we will close for public comment at this time and then to go to what her question is about um road connection with whitest stone

and let me see if I can um I'm going to again I'm going to go back to the previous deck. Okay. uh the whitest stone connection here and if I'm understanding if I understood the comment correctly it was that there's a there's no connection to Geneva road directly from the project right but that also because you can't come out of this project and easily go down to Geneva cuz there's barriers there's a median here to control traffic for right out only um or no left I'm I'm not sure so is is the thinking that you can't turn left from here. And so

you would you go to 800 West and turn left. Um but uh I'm not sure I'm not sure how that those movements would have been taken into account. I'm not sure if it can be I'm not sure how to to address it. Um if project if if they could come from this project through and down 800 West if they're trying to get to Geneva, I I guess that's a potential because they are connected. Okay, I need some clarification now. And I'm going to point to the big one. Go ahead. So, it's kind of the opposite direction. This one, there's no left. It's only right in. Right in, right? Right out.

So, you can't turn left from here. So, I guess what you're saying is if I'm getting the comment right, they would if they're coming up from Geneva, they would turn in here to go up into the project. But two houses later, you can make a right and a left. Yeah. Well, the access isn't right and right out only on 800 West, I suppose. Right. It would be here. So, it's more controlled correct on the road in Whit Stone than it is here at Post. And then, yeah, that Susan's asking about 600. Is it the same? Is it the same only right in right out?

I don't believe so. So, I think that would be something we'd want to determine because if that's the case, then it does route everybody who wants to take a left down 800 West, right? or human nature just they disregard the or they just disre a physical divider there would be which then why have it you know so I think that's something we'd want to look at I think because that would force everyone down 800 west which then changes your traffic results right you're no longer sitting at a is it a C

well that would that's I guess that's what I was saying about the traffic study is that it it would have already taken that into account because it included Whit stone and the traffic measures that go into whitest stone. So all of the all of the all of the the results of that traffic study are still the same because it's not going to change that would have anticipated that.

Sorry. I I guess I don't understand the traffic study and I might need some more detail on that because it seems to me if you've got three roads coming down and people are trying to go left, you have three different options for them. So traffic's going to be less, delay time is less, but if you route them all onto one, that time's going to increase. Am I understanding that correctly? I'll let you Yeah, I think you're understanding exactly correctly. What I'm saying is that they included those intersections in their traffic study and saw them all not failing. So that would have been anticipated. We can I I so I don't I'm not sure how I look into further other than to

to that's the traffic impact study anticipated that as an issue if if they're being routed that way if you want to think of it that way. I I know that the the one is right in right out only the other is not. So you would have another option to go left out of this project out of whitest stone. But everyone from the more direct route from the the application tonight uh Westerly Way is definitely down here. Absolutely. Increased traffic there. Absolutely. The applicant indicating that somebody might be able to answer that question. Is there somebody you want to come forward please?

Please. Um, my name's Roger Dudley. I'm the engineer for both projects. So, I might be able to add something. The the requirement for the right in right out came from Provo City. Uh, 2000 South Street, west of I-15 is owned by Provo City. It's actually a Provo City street. Orm city engineers. Uh, I may be speaking out of turn a little bit, Jared, but ORM city engineers see no reason for that to be right in, right out. There are two roads that come from the south on the Provo side that uh access 2000 South freely. Um, in addition to the three that we have uh up. Okay. Okay. Um, so the the question and I the the traffic study, this was a suggestion I think that was made. However, I I'm I'm a little bit like you. I'm not sure why a ride in right out is is required. 2000 South is an arterial street. It it's designed it's going to be widened on the north side and it has a stoplight at Geneva Road. Um, I don't see personally as an engineer the reason why we would need right in right out. So, I think we're going to possibly do some push back with Provo over that because the Orm City engineers feel the same that we do that I we don't see a need for it. We've had a couple of instances in the last years where one was required by the engineers and have since been removed because it it proved to be not necessary

and even more distracting than placing one there. So, I think that that item uh when we when we come through the staff for our final approval, I think we're going to push back on that requirement. That is not an ORM city requirement. It's a Provo city requirement. So, that's that's my comments there. Thank you. That was very helpful. I appreciate it.

I I have one comment, too. Uh that as I'm looking at this, if I were living in one of those homes, there are only about 10 of those homes that I would ever consider going out 800 West on. The rest of them uh just lend themselves better to 600 West. I I wouldn't I would never backtrack that much to go out 800 west. I go I just take the angle to 600 west and go out that way. So I know in practice it may not be desirable for very many if any of the residents there to to head towards 800 West. Just just my opinion if I were if I were driving it myself.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the planning commission? I think I echo a concern with the the residents. I think that I think that's a lot of traffic being funneled into, you know, one to two streets. Um I think I think an access to GM I think would be would be wise. Susan, I think I agree with that. I think you've got a lot. you're going to have two to three cars at least per home. People coming in and out multiple times a day

just right now and then 20 years from now it's going to be probably five or six cars,

right? And I I just that that's a lot to funnel on those roads. And so having a Geneva access and I know that would probably require moving the storm drain, you know, and you got to maybe lose a little bit of that proposed parking in the PO zone, the proposed PO. I whatever it involves. I I don't know. But it just seems like having an access to Geneva. I understand the school doesn't want an access. That makes perfect sense. to school. You don't want a lot of traffic, but certainly there has to be a way that a compromise can be reached to allow for access to Geneva Road. It's my

Jeff, but of course we I think we have to put some faith in the traffic study that was done. I don't know if any of us are experts in that area. Is there any comment on I'm assuming the people who did that are qualified to assess that. Uh, how does that get done? I'm in the same boat as you, not an expert on the traffic studies. Um, our our transportation engineer, John Dornney, reviewed it or was produced by Avenue. They're reputable. Yeah. If it's possible, I'd love to hear from the applicant again to see. Actually, I'm sure they've considered it. I'd love to hear maybe their reasoning if that's possible.

Would the applicant like to come forward and answer? I didn't hear a question though. I'm sure in in your many meetings you've had with your city, we're sure you've considered an access road to Geneva. Yeah. Initially, your rationale and kind of background on that.

Yeah, sure. Certainly. And and just for clarification, initially when we weren't discussing this 3 acres at the bottom, that's the proposed PRD zone. Um it was called Farm Haven because we believed that it would be surrounded by farmland. And when it when um the property to the east was sold, um Wilkerson Farm was sold, that's why it's been 3 years since we've been back here and these homes weren't already built, right? Um um but when they put together the plans, they required us to have an access to the whitest stone property, which would then bring all of their I mean, if you're asking them the quickest way to Geneva Road, it would have been right through ours. So it not only brings because of that access not only brings our traffic but now brings their traffic and initially if we were to just have our traffic that we could potentially work something out we're definitely empathetic to the neighbors. They've been fantastic to chat with as we've done these neighborhood meetings and you know I don't think they were thrilled about you know Wilkerson Farm going away either as you know. So I I mean I understand it but at this point like with the access to that like I just it doesn't make sense to have them be able to go all the way through if that makes sense.

It does. Thank you. It does. It is a very difficult place because on one hand it's like you want it makes sense to have the the access but yet you're right. You open that access you're opening it for everyone else to get to Geneva right now. I mean, Geneva will be a stub eventually, but for now, it's still a major road. Do we have access to that traffic study? Sorry. Go ahead. Do we have access to that traffic study? Oh, yeah. Was it Do we I didn't see it. You I mean, I didn't include it in your in your Snap reports, but have it.

Okay. Oh, sorry. I'm get I'm getting my mic my people are very smartly muting me when they can. Um, yeah, we we have access to it. We can send it to you all as well if that's something you'd like to see. I'd like that. Thank you. Sure. Any questions? Yeah, you can ask questions. This is that proposed PRD zone below the parking. Nice green band. What do you do you know what's going to happen to that? Yeah, that's that the green band is where I don't know if you can explain where that green band was and what's in it now. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, like what is the OS5 corner of the storm drain over the parking?

I see what you're saying. I mean, our plan is to have like a little pavilion or a little field that kids can play on, things like that. Just a nice green grassy area and we want to have as minimal impact um on the neighbors in Payton's Grassies as well. And is that associated with the school or with the It'll be owned It'll be owned by the school cuz it's in it's No, it's not. I think the line comes just at the clarification. No, it is still in the the PRD zone. So, I think that Yeah, Craig, you're gonna have to clarify. I was say Jared could help. It's part of the That's what it is. Yeah, that people from the people from the PRD would have access to it. There's been so many iterations. I'm very sorry.

Thanks for your patience. Basically, for clarification, the parking lot up will become part of the autism academy and the green band down is part of the PRD. That's right. Is that correct? Okay, that's the one. I was just going to say really quick, I think the hinge to this whole thing is what is Provo City going to be doing? If Provo City is going to dictate which way the traffic goes, then I think we have a bigger issue. I think if once we get some clarity on that, that'll make this decision a lot easier.

Yeah. And for the commissioners, just to be aware, one of the options we have on the table is is to table this to a further meeting so that we can get some of these further traffic questions answered. So, as we when we go to motion, that's something we can choose to do. Yeah. And I'm conflicted because I love the concept. I love the idea. I love, you know, it's it's easy to be passionate about autism needs. Thank you. Um, yeah, I think I think those are just some of my concerns.

Yeah, I think we as we've looked at this really closely too, that access as he was mentioning, that access that isn't uh right and left that's on the other side. Um, we are hopeful that people won't need to or want to come through this to make the same the same and and as as you can imagine like we'd rather not push this down the road any further than we already have. But I I respect whatever needs to happen here. But

okay, Mr. Deli would also like to make a comment. So, so that we understand that two accesses coming from um from Yellow or from our project, only one of those is right in right out. I I think that's understood. The one that's closest to the railroad track is a full service. Uh and it lines up exactly with the project to the south. That was a requirement. U so it's only the one there that's that's being proposed is right in right out. Will there be a light at that intersection or never? No.

Okay. One slightly. The traffic Yeah. traffic counts would not warrant that. There's not sufficient for that. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Do we want to go to motion at this point? Does someone have a motion? Yeah. J, can we get the uh motion? Who's going to do it? Darren or Yep. Sorry, I got to go all the way to um I think I think there maybe we need some more time, I think, to think about things. U so I'm going to go ahead and move that the Or City Planning Commission uh forward recommendation or to um

continue to continue the request for further consideration um to to the next planning commission. Sure. is to be uh for just for my information going forward is the question is the traffic you want to find out from Provo City what that would do and I'll send to all of you the traffic impacts that he

yeah and we will have our traffic engineer come to that meeting and answer your questions he's great so okay so the motion on the table is to continue this item to our next planning commission meeting so we can take some more time to look into things. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. Britain moved and Mike a second that we continue the planning this item till the next planning commission meeting. We'll go to vote. I'll start with you. We'll do something different. Susan. Yay. I Oh. I I I Carl I.

Okay. Item 5.1 is continued to the next planning commission meeting. Thank you. I appreciate everyone who helped us with information tonight and spoke. Okay. Item 5.2 is Spring Hollow. It's a reszone. It's a request to reszone the property located generally at 92 South 800 East from R8 residential to C1 commercial. And did we have a disclosure on this one? Oh, yeah. This is just very close to my neighborhood. Basically, my neighborhood. I know a lot of people who serve there. I serve there from time to time. So just a quick disclosure as to my in my interest here.

Okay. Thank you. Then Gary we from our previous discussion. He's good. Yes. And it it wouldn't affect your ability to uh fairly analyze this. No, I don't think it affects my ability to fairly analyze this. I have uh nice feelings towards the elderly living there, but I don't believe it affects my ability. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we'll begin with our staff presentation.

Thank you. Um, as you said, this is 92 South 800 East and the um, just by way of background to make sure it it makes sense, it is in the R8 zone. This is an assisted living facility. We do allow assisted living uh, in residential zones, but at a much smaller scale uh, these days than this was approved at. So, there are a number of beds here. We only allow up to eight um, residents in a in a residential zone right now in assisted living. So, this is non-conforming as a use to the R8 zone that it's in. Not that there's never any assisted living allowed in R8 zoning, but this particular scale wouldn't be allowed um as a new project. So, it's legal but non-conforming. Means it was approved um the short version is that it was approved and was allowable at the time that it was approved. Things have changed since then. Uh the common term is grandfathering. It feels a little on the nose for an assisted living center actually. But the um the development or sorry the uh the proposal to change the property's zoning to C1 has to do with a plan uh to conceptually to expand the facility. Um some legal non-conforming buildings can be expanded if they're legal non-conforming as to their their setbacks or things like that. But one of the things that we don't specifically allow in residential zoning is the increase of density or numbers of units. In this case, that would be extra beds. And that's what they're trying to do in their concept plan. We'll get into some of that in the slides here in just a second, but that's the crux of the desire for the reszone is to to make it available to expand the the facility cuz it can go on the way it is forever. Uh but to make any changes significantly and add those beds, they'd need to uh change that zoning. And that's the reason that they're proposing to use a development agreement to limit that use um if we change the zoning to C1. And we'll talk about all that in just a second as well. As we said, it's the R8 zone. It's deep in the R8 zone. I'd have to zoom out a long way to show you any other zoning in the area. It's all single family uh residential zoning.

There's a church uh and parking lot to the north. Uh this area to the east is vacant as well. There are the homes right in back and the canal that you can see there. Um this is their expansion concept that that raised kind of the issue when they started looking at making this expansion. It's a two-story edition. would add 18 more beds um for folks to live there. Um and it would add better kitchen and dining facilities as well. Um based on our parking standard, they can park the extra facility. Uh 21 parking spaces would be required. Um does that parking requirement does that include employee parking as well?

Yes. So two and a half. We don't have a separated employee for it. It's just two and a half per bed. Um, a lot of codes for assisted living do one parking space per five beds and then they calculate parking for employees as well. Ours just reduces or makes more stringent the requirement per bed and and ignores the employees. Um, it's a good question. Thank you. The the elevations are this would be two stories. The bed uh the extra beds would be upstairs and the the main floor would be the better kitchen and dining facilities. It is a two-story edition, but it's still just the 30 ft in height, which is typical in our residential zone. So, it would be um in terms of height anyway, not out of character, although the mass is is more than typical. Um the development agreement that's been proposed is just to simply limit the use to nothing but assisted living. So, it allows them to it would allow them to expand with the zone change, but not take on any additional risk of there being a whatever else might be allowed in a C1 zone. uh shops, a nail salon or anything else, it would be tied to the property. So, if in the future they wanted to sell the the property and somebody wanted to tear it down and build a restaurant, they wouldn't be able to do that. Um, for that reason, the development agreement has been proposed.

So, if if the planning commission were to want to recommend this change to the city council, you would also want to recommend that they approve that development agreement as well. You don't approve the development agreement, but you would recommend on that as well. That make sense? Yeah, now you can Britain, can you remind me what the um height limitations are for that commercial in commercial in the in the C1 35. But the other thing this development agreement would do would be to tie them to their expansion plan to this concept. We'd use it the same way that we do PRDS frankly and have an exhibit for the development agreement that would tie them to this plan. So we'd know the numbers of beds and we'd know the facilities look and height etc. Good question. Do

you have more to say on the I don't. Sorry. That's that's all I have to say. Unless you have questions. I'm happy to happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. The applicant like to come forward.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Paul Washburn and I'm representing this project this evening. Um, this has been here for a while. In fact, I think I was serving on the planning commission when this was approved back in the early 90s. So, had a little bit of history with it. Uh the intent is to add some additional beds, residential care facilities for elderly people. Uh particularly in neighborhoods where there's close to family and friends, they're hard to find. It's it's getting harder. People my age and not much older are looking for a place to be. Um I uh my mother this past year passed away and one of the things we discovered really quickly is 70 year olds can't take care of 90 year olds. It's dangerous for them and it's dangerous for us and being able to have facilities that are local that you can get to easily in neighborhoods are really important. In this particular one we're looking at 16 beds. They're going to be able to increase the size of their kitchen and dining room. Try and uh upgrade the facility though it's a very nice facility. Now uh in terms of impacts on neighborhood as was mentioned uh to the north is a church. uh to the west by the time you have the 20 foot set back from the buildings to the property line uh north canal right ofway is another 40 ft probably another 30 ft in the backyard to the adjacent houses were almost 100 ft away from the house the house is to the west and again divided by the the north union canal and I'd be glad to answer any questions I can for you

thank you any questions for the applicants oh One other thing I'd like to point out is the development agreement is very specific and it calls out limiting the use sorry uh to land use category 1281. If you read through there that is specifically residential care facility for elderly people. uh all the other uses that people are concerned about, alcohol rehab, any other thing, all have different standard land use categories and they would have to come back and go through basically a resone the same as we are if somebody wanted to change use from this specific use.

Thank you. Any questions? Sorry. Yeah, I think my question would go back to parking, the parking issue. If you're essentially doubling your size in terms of people you're serving, plus you're adding kitchen and dining or expanding them, whatever it is. Um, I just feel like is 21. I mean, I know that's the code, but if it doesn't meet the standard, they're parking on 8 East. Parking lots for these kind of facilities rarely have cars in them. Okay, that's

they're overparked. And I've and I've been doing this for a long time. I've represented probably 30 different residential care facilities. It's sad, but uh I think if you were drive by this one, and Mr. Hawkins is is closely affiliated with it, he could tell me if I'm wrong, but I think I'd be very surprised if you ever saw more than four or five cars in the parking lot. The one concern is sometimes people will say, "What about holidays?" Typically, people come pick up people and take them away. They don't stay there for holidays. And just for that clarification, this is an assistant, not an independent. Correct. It's relatively independent. There are beds,

uh, individual rooms for the for the residents that are there, but they're there because they needed additional help. And again, as I was explaining with my own mother, we discovered pretty quickly, if you're 70, it's hard to take care of a 90-year-old without hurting one or the other of you. It's good to have professional people that can help us in these situations. I mean, and as an aside to this, yes, I agree. I think it's something that we should jot down to look down in the code down the list of things because I have problems actually where my grandmother is here in Orum finding parking because of the combination of people who live there whose car and the employees, it can be really difficult to get in when she has an emergency and stuff. So,

but I that doesn't affect you. I'm just saying let's put that on the long list of ordinances to review for future reference. But thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Carl, do you have anything? No. No questions. Okay. Since this is a public hearing, we will open for public comment at this time. If you'd like to come forward same as before, please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes. and we will make that available for whoever would like to come forward now.

Hi, my name is Dean Dickerson. I live in this neighborhood. Uh, thank you for your service. The commissioners don't often hear that. I've sat in those seats and I know exactly what you're going through. So, thank you for your service to our great city. Um, I live in this neighborhood. Uh, in talking with Mr. Washburn. He's alleviated a lot of our my concerns. Um my bigger concern I guess is with the city is why they are changing this because originally when the city council uh approved this all of what he wants to do would have been all right would have been approved. And in fact, I looked it up and uh in the meeting of August 12th uh 2006, which I was a member of the city council at that time, the specific promise was made to the neighbors that this would not become commercial, not this specific one, but if we allowed this kind of stuff into R8, that that would never come back. Now, it's alleviated. It's quieting my concerns to know that the piece on the east of this is now part of a a conservancy district for the state of Utah. And so this is not going to need to be a buffer zone or anything like that. Um but I I think for the most part on my concern after talking with Mr. Washburn, we're good. But uh the other use I would like to ask for the city is clear back when I was on the city council and I haven't been on the city council o since ' 09 they were going to cover the canal and make that a walking path and if that is the case how are we going to alleviate problems with that here uh because there's been money set aside

for years to do that by the state of Utah and for the tempanogus water conser conservancy district. So, with those two concerns, I think everything is good. I would like to uh we'll be looking over the developmental agreement, which is good. I think this will be a good uh probably a good addition where I'm comfortable with the height and everything else, the parking. You're absolutely right. Those parking stalls, the people that are here in this are not coming with cars. Um they're they're just not. So, it's people that's doing it. But I would like the commission to take note that had this possibility of turning into a C1 zone uh back when this was originally put into R8, this would not have passed.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Garrett O'Brien. I'm on the south end of that photo there and I have a couple questions about this. Um, my first is I don't have any idea how tall 30 ft is on a building. There was an image there that showed um like how how far additional or how much taller. Yes, thank you. Um, but that that scale doesn't really help me out a whole lot. And so I would like further clarification as opposed to my current point of reference that it's just three basketball hoops tall. I don't I don't know how much more that would mean for me. So that's one question. Another question is where the where these beds would be. There's um the documents say that there will be 18, but um Mr. Washburn just said 16. That's not a huge concern, but I'm I'm curious where those windows will be and where those rooms will be. Um cuz right now the current residents of Spring Hollow cannot view into my backyard or any of the backyards that are here. But if we add a second story room, then I don't I don't really want people looking into my backyard where my little girls are playing. Um and lastly, um just a comment, being part of this community and knowing the residents of Spring Hollow as I do, they're they're wonderful. I have no objection to Spring Hollow whatsoever. Um, my experience is that they're not really local residents that reside here, but most of them are from out of the city or sometimes even out of state that come to live in Spring Hollow. Um, not really any bearing on this addition. Just a comment from my experience in my exposure here that these people are not um they're not orites necessarily um though I'm not natively either. But uh just another comment on that. So yeah, primary concerns are where those windows will be and the height of this addition in relation to perhaps the building uh

the church building north or the current homes that are presently built and have been since the early 60s. Thank you. Thank you. We'll come back and answer those questions after public comment.

This is 30 ft. Okay. Next person. Uh, my name is John Henninger. I live at 101 Eastwood. I'm directly west of this new twostory edition. The concerns I have Okay. Can you hear me now? I'm concerned uh first of all with the height. According to the C1 classification, that can be built as high as 48 ft. The homes in that area are typically 15 feet tall. And my home is only perhaps 30, 40, 50 feet from this at least my fence line on that twotory addition. I'm al I'm also concerned about the noise. There's going to be 18 individual air conditioning units for the units and I would estimate probably three more for the kitchen and the two dining areas. Now, one may not make much noise, but commercial grade air conditioning units added together can make a considerable amount of noise. Uh, also a commercial-grade exhaust fan for the kitchen, which would probably be mounted on the roof, adds to the noise. Uh, privacy, which was mentioned. As far as the windows, all of those, uh, I believe eight or nine windows are going to be looking right into my backyard. Right now, I have almost total privacy. And I guess it was also brought up why

after 20 years or so they decide they need to add units to this now. Where where's the need coming from? And I guess another concern I have all of this is just going to decrease decrease my home's value. And uh finally, I'd like to read the neighborhood goals for this uh goal number one, strategically locate higher density development on major roads such as State Street and University Parkway. Goal number three, support the city's goal of prohibiting zone changes within the neighborhood to maintain the single family residential character. And those would be my main concerns. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Heidi Williams. I would second concerns with the height and privacy issues. I'm also part of this neighborhood and another big concern with changing it to commercial. Well, some of those fears were are set aside, but the our neighborhoods, there are many children and youth that walk along 800 East to get to that church building and the park there. And if it were to change to something other than just what it is now as Spring Hollow, um I feel like that could become an issue, but my fears are a little bit laid there. I if it was going to be able to be commercial and change into a different type of property, I have big concerns in that area.

Thank you.

We have two uh comments that were phoned in to us earlier. Um first, this is from Eric McDonald. He called to oppose the Spring Hollow Reszone specifically in reference to the types of future uh uses that may go in with a zone change. The second one is from Elizabeth Hornbrook who also lives in the neighborhood. She does not want uh it to be reszoned to a C1 neighborhood. She's concerned that that if it's reszoned to C1, then that will that commercial um type of use will continue into other areas in the neighborhood. She's concerned that uh she does not want the senior living uh facility to become bigger. Um she has said that she's had conversation with other neighbors who agree with her on this and that they do not want it to be commercial. Um she feels that it's just a developer who was behind this and they want to put in commercial pro projects. So those were her comments.

Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to come forward for public comment? Hi, my name is Maria Moreno. We live just across the the nursing right there. Um, I'm concerned about the height and the noise. We had a lot of noise. About maybe two years ago, I called the police about 3:00 in the morning. It was old lady screaming really loud for help. I don't know for how long. The police told me, "You're not the only one who called. We already have a call. there's nothing we can do about it. So, the next day I went to the nursing home. Uh it was really disgusting the order that was there. It was only one girl working that day. And she told me that she was so um I'm so sorry. She said, "We don't have too many people last night. Uh I was the only one here working." And then I said, "How's the lady? How's the lady who was screaming out loud for help?" and she said, "Oh, she's she's come and now we we get she thought she could come down and say, "Okay." So, three days later, the same thing, the same lady. I went again to the nursing home because the police say there nothing they can do about it. Uh it was another person in the in the office in there. It was a guy and he told me um they were really sorry. the lady who was screaming almost every other night. Uh she has nobody who can go see her, any any relative who could go see her. So she was alone by herself every day. But I don't know, it's just concern to me about the noise that we have the high like he said, I don't want people to see my kids work and playing in the backyard or something like that. I don't know how this is going to work for many people. We are going to have more people there. I don't

know. It's just that's what I wanted to say. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone else like to come forward? Okay. Then we will close the public comment at this time. Um if you Mr. Rashurn, if you want to come back up.

Thank you. Um, two things. Just want to reiterate the nature of the development agreement is really very locks us down. We can't do anything more than what is being done there now. Uh, I wish there was a residential zone that we could go to. This is just the only option we have in the city. Uh second one, there was concern that there would be people looking out on these uh looking west that would look into other people's backyards. There's four units on the second floor and we've agreed we'll frost those windows so that's not an issue.

Thank you. Any question other questions for the developers? want to confirm that that the height of the building is is the is the same height I could build a house if I were to go in that neighborhood and and right taller than a typical home. We're not going to be quite that tall. I think we're just the peak of the roof I think is going to be under 30 ft. Okay. But I could build a house in that same neighborhood that's at least that tall. Right. I think you can go 35 ft. 35 in. Yeah. 35. Yeah. Susan, I guess my question would be towards noise concerns that were raised with the exhaust from kitchen from well

air conditioning units. Do you have wall units? What's causing the noise?

Nothing is going to be going out uh to the neighborhood to the west. All of those will actually go into the church parking lot, I believe. Uh, in terms of the new edition, uh, I'm not sure if they were planning on using window units there or not, but I think in that new edition, uh, we'd be glad to just put in a single unit and put the condenser so it's adjacent to the church, not against the neighborhood. The old air conditioners make a lot of noise. In the last 25 years, things have improved a lot. I own an office building on 8th North and we've got huge air conditioning units and they're they're basically pretty silent.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Darren, do you have any? Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, one of the other questions was building height being 30 feet. So, Jared, can you address that?

Yes. that the gentleman that spoke is absolutely correct. 48 ft is allowed in the C1. This particular plan would be tied down by the development agreement and the allowance there would be the 30 ft that they're that they're showing proposing at the highest point, but that would only be tied by the development agreement. The C1 zone does allow up to 48 ft. That's true. We have different setbacks that are at different distances from residential zoning. It has to be reduced. So, it's it's not an absolute 48, but it does go up to 48 depending on how far you are from residential zoning. Brighton's first.

So, in 20 years when this property sells, possibly redeveloped, that then has the potential to go up to 48 ft. Well, the development agreement is tied to the zoning. So, if the development agreement goes away, the zoning goes away. Oh, I see. So, so it goes back to

Yeah. any change to that would have to be made through the process of it's an agreement between the the property owners and the council and the with development agreements we would record that against the property. So, if they sold it to another company and that company decided, "Oh, this isn't working out anymore. We're going to sell our facility and someone wants to come in and raise it and build something else." They're still bound to the that whatever new owner is still bound to a development agreement with the city that says your zoning is tied to this plan with this many beds and assisted living only as the use. They don't want to do that. They need to change their zone to something else because their C1 zone is not the same as everybody else's C1 zone. Does that make sense? because of the development agreement.

And if they did want to change that, they'd have to come in and talk to the planning commission and city council again to change that agreement. So, okay, Darren, no, that was my question. Okay. That's the reason that they've suggested the development agreement. Okay. So, we can discuss. We could go to motion. Um, I just want to make one comment, chair,

based on uh, former commissioner Dickerson's comments. Originally, the intent of the zoning that this had previously, what would have allowed this kind of, but there's been a change in the zoning since that that wouldn't necessitate that. Is that what I understood from those comments? Maybe somebody has some clarification on that,

Jared. That's that's exactly right. So, um, years ago, we would have allowed larger facilities even in the R8 zone. It's not like this this property was never zoned commercially to allow something like this facility. It was zoned residential, but at the time, a facility like this or even a little bit larger would have been allowed. Since that time, we've made changes to the code that have shrunk the density and size of assisted living when they're located in residential zones. Thank you. That was that helped. Thank you, Darren.

Uh, yeah, I think it was the first person who spoke. I'm sorry I didn't keep that careful of notes, who mentioned this North Union Canal and that it's slated for um, you know, maybe sort of a public access kind of thing. Is that right? And is would anything here affect that? I'm I'm not sure how it is right something that the city is continuing to look at potentially a trail on the North Union Canal property. I'm not sure how that would impact the the use of it's already an assisted living facility. It um I'm not sure if it's fenced. That's not something I've looked at actually. Um if we're running a trail along there, we could require it to be fenced. We don't I don't know. I'm not sure how to address that. Yeah.

Well, it should be with the canal. I know every I know other sections it's fenced on both sides. Yeah. So yeah. So it is it is fenced now I'm hearing. But it's only like six feet high. Yeah. If you put if you put concrete on top of that we're not sorry order here but yeah. So So does that answer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I'm not sure what the concern was that was raised, but I I like trails and I want to I want to reserve trails and so I couldn't think about how this would affect that, but uh it doesn't seem likely. So, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Britain. Oh, um what I have for this that people asked about was the height, what 30 feet actually looks like, um where the windows and the views were. They talked about the four that face the backyards would be frosted. Yeah. The exhaust, light, noise. Um concerned about additional units changing C1.

What do you mean like who had comments? Well, are we satisfied with what their comments are? It's that's Yeah, this is more of a clarifying point that I know has been said, but I think I want to restate it just so we're all on the same page. If a developer comes in and this is C1, we don't need to worry about that because the development agreement sticks with it. So, no one's going to put a restaurant in, no one's going to put a nail salon, no one's going to put any of that in because it has to be assisted living with the development agreement that they're proposing. Yes. Yes.

I I would caveat that just not to but they somebody could come in and say, "I want to modify that development agreement." The point is they would have to ask, right, the city and it would come back through this process. Come back through. I just want to clarify that because we're getting things that if people were listening comments over I just want to make sure that that's clear. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's exactly right. But if it comes to that, I'll I'll play this gentleman a role and I'll come back in 15 20 years and I'll say, "No, hold on a second. Supposed to be we made this decision intentionally."

Yeah. So, okay. So, there's no further discussion. We can go to motion. Can you flip to the I'll go to the motion page in case.

Yeah. I motion that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request to amend article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the city of Oram by changing the zone of the property located generally at 92 South 800 East from R8 single family residential to C1 commercial approximately 1.09 09 acres in conjunction with the proposed development agreement limiting the use of the property to assisted living facilities and the concept expansion plan presented.

Okay. Do I have a second? I would assume your motion would include uh the development agreement as proposed and also adding frosted glass because I don't believe that's in the proposed development agreement. Yes, I would do frosted glass and I would do a unit off to the church. The orientation of the mechanical mechanical the mechanical sound moving over the church parking lot. Yes. Could you add that? Thank you. I thought that was the motion. I just wanted to clarify. You read my mind. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second that.

Okay. Susan moved and Britain second that we forward a a recommendation of approval to the city council pursuant Oh gosh, I have to rethink this through. Okay. from changing it from the RA to the C1 in conjunction with the development agreement with the addition of frosted glass for those facing homes and and that the mechanicals face towards the church lot. Okay. So, this is kind of we're new at this, so I'm going to explain a couple of things real fast. We just for clarification, we're making recommendations to the city council. So, this isn't the final decision. This will go before the city council in another and whenever it gets scheduled. And so that would again be another time to come and talk to the city council before they make their their final decision. And also we can have further discussion even though that this um motion has been made. And to clarify why we want this, we may want to state some of that. It's up to you if you want to speak. Since you made the motion, you get to go first, followed by Britain, and then we can go around. If there's any if you don't have anything more to say, that's fine. But I'm just explaining that you have the opportunity to make a statement if you want to say anything further.

I think with those two additions, I don't I think I'm covered with my concerns. Okay, Britain. Uh, yeah, I I want to know records in the city is not something that I'm privy to. uh how long can we realistically track these development agreements? Is it going to go into that uh document or that material that you mentioned earlier? Um yeah. Yeah. That we would record the development agreement against the property. So that that would be one of the requirements. So if anybody goes to purchase it, it comes up in the title reports. So,

and if anybody maybe even the the same current applicant maybe who doesn't change hands and if they will go and try to make any kind of change that would come up as a flag as well. Yep. Exactly. Okay. Would anyone else like to make any comments before we go on? Carl, do you want to say anything before we go to vote? No, thank you. I'm I'm pretty comfortable with this right now. Okay. Okay, then we will go to vote. I will start with Britain. Hi, Susan. I I I Carl. I Okay. I Oh, Jeff. Sorry. I

I Okay,

I apologize. That's what I get for going off my normal like pattern. So, okay. Item 5.2 is we will forward a positive recommendation to city council. It's unanimous. And then we'll go on to and thank you for all who came to speak. We will uh move on to item 5.3 which is special exceptions. It's a text amendment. It's an ordinance amending article 2-15-2 and 2-15-11 and 2-16-2 and 2-16-10 and 22-21-2. That is a lot of twos of the ORM city code relating to the powers and duties of the planning commission and special exceptions.

I would I had a goal to write all of the longest descriptions for everything possible in this particular meeting. They'll get shorter in the future. Um this is a text amendment um that staff is proposing. U as you said that in a nutshell what this does is two things. Well, let me start before that. I'm going to go jump skip back one thing. There are different powers and duties from different bodies. Uh we talked about in training tonight the land use authority function that the planning commission has for subdivisions and uh site plans and you recommend to the city council on things like we just reviewed for the zone change. Um the board of adjustments is another body and one of their duties is to hear requests for variances. Um we won't get into what that all entails. Another thing that they have done is reviewed special exceptions in two instances. One of them for billboards locations or relocations rather and another for allowing multifamily developments on a single family parcel but only in very limited circumstances. That's article 2221. Those two things. Um so I'm going to I'm going to skip billboards and talk about article 221 for a second because it's the easiest way to explain why we're proposing this change. Article 2020 2221 allows the board of adjustments to make a finding that um a particular property meets these requirements for special exception. And there's a few different requirements. But then article 221 goes on to say a whole bunch of other things that are reviewed by the planning commission for the site plan for that multif family development. So that is to say, if the board of adjustments finds in three different ways that it meets the requirements for a special exception, they then turn around and say, "Okay, now the planning commission can review the site plan based on that exception." And you have to review not normal stuff for multif family development, but a whole host of things that are contained in the in this particular article. Um

the planning commission recently heard not a request for the special exception but a a request to change the special exceptions that was ultimately not passed. But it pointed out that um it made more sense for the planning commission who was already having to review these items in a site plan or would have had to to have made the finding for the exception as well. And since the only other special exception is for these billboard relocations and the billboard is another kind of land use as well. it made more sense for the land use authority to be the decider in those instances for special exceptions. Um, does that make sense? Article 2020 202 2221 uh is not very often used and there aren't many places where it can be used but it basically says if you have a single family zoned parcel um and it's in the middle of or surrounded by multif family development that has happened over the years you can petition to ask for this special exception and be granted uh an an exception to build a multif family development on it. pretty limited, but a multif family development because you're surrounded by other multif family developments and you were just kind of passed over in the day. Um there's just different findings that have to be made to do that. That's the change that we made in article 22:21. Um you would there's two places where we need to strike the term board of adjustments and say planning commission instead and then it's all in your purview to make that finding. Um these others 2152 is uh where the powers and duties of the planning commission as the land use authority for different things are laid out and we would add to that special exceptions were specifically called out by the ordinance uh 21510 in that same little section where your powers and duties are called out. Oddly enough, it just sticks right in there. your uh or we would stick right in there just like they do for the board of adjustments. Right now, your requirement to find special exceptions for certain billboards that want to relocate from

where they are. Um right now the planning or the board of adjustments says that under 21611. We would strike 21611 so that the board of adjustments doesn't have to find special exceptions for those billboards anymore either. I'm not sure when the last time a billboard requested that exception was. Couldn't tell you. Um but uh the last time the board of adjustments met it was difficult to get them all together. They don't meet very often. Variance requests are few and far between. Um it makes more sense to have the planning commission do these two items for exception. Um any any questions about what we're proposing here? Does that make sense? Darren?

Yeah. I'm still I'm just I want to try to make sure I understand the motive here. So the motive is streamlining things. It sounds like that simp simplifying simplifying simplifying is a good word for it. A lot of the things that that have to be made in especially in article 221 uh the billboards is kind of a a bonus. So let's focus on 2221 for a moment. The things that you have to make as findings or the things that currently the board has to make as findings in article 221 are directly related to the way the site will function.

And that's really your kind of perview as planning commission. it just makes inherently more sense for you to make you'll make better decisions. Um, so it's partly streamlining but partly just a natural order. It would have helped in a previous circumstances if we had been able to be the Absolutely. They're very interrelated to the other once you once those findings have been made then you have to review and make sure it's meeting all these other requirements. It would make sense to just do all that at once. Okay. Any other questions? I have one. Okay.

So, going through this process, I guess if it makes it if it doesn't take away any due process or access for people making these petitions, then then I'm I'm for it. Does it make it less difficult, more difficult, the same? Just putting the responsibility somewhere else?

That's a really good question. It just moves the responsibility to the planning commission. doesn't it doesn't truncate their access to the petition at all. It probably actually makes it easier because you all meet twice a month and the board of adjustments meets once every seven years or something. It's it's not as it'll be easier to it'll be quicker for them to get on an agenda and get considered. Whether they're going to get approved or not is not really an issue because they have to meet those requirements, but they'll be it'll be quicker to get them reviewed if you are the body reviewing them as well. So, in that sense, it kind of increases their access to the to the process. Thank you. That that that helps me.

Yeah. I mean, for what it's worth, I'm for this one. I think this is one of many little changes that I think could help streamline the process. I think it helps people have access and and be able to to do this in a way that is less cumbersome. Cuz really what he's talking about that's time that's delay that's a lot of things that we can eliminate by having us be able to look at these things. So okay. All right. So if there's no further discussion we could have a motion. It is a public hearing.

Oh public hearing. And I told myself that like 400 times. Was not going to forget that it's a public hearing. Yes. This is a text amendment. So, we need to have we are going to open our public hearing up to comment. If anyone has any comment on this issue and would like to come forward, they're welcome to at this time. I'm surprised. I thought there was a lot of latent interest in article 2220 and the powers of duties clauses, but you never know. For sure. You never know. It is riveting material. It's it's all over social media. The campaign has begun. No. Okay, then I will close since no one has come forward public comment at this time and now we can go to motion.

Sure. I move that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the proposed amendments to article 2-15-2-15-11 2-16-2-16-10 and 22-21 of the ORM city code relating to the powers and duties of the planning commission and special exceptions. Do I have a second? Uh yes, I second. Okay. Darren moved and Jeff seconded that we forward a an a recommendation of approval to the city council on this item. Going to start with Micah this time. I I I I I Carl

I Thank you. Okay, that passes unanimously. We will forward a I still want to say a positive recommendation because that's what it's been for years. I know. Sorry. Approval is not rolling off the tongue. So, thank you and thank you for your patience. I know that was kind of a long meeting. Um, Gary, do you have anything for us?

Only to uh thank you for serving, especially those who are new and and signed up. I hope we haven't frightened you away uh with the meeting so far. And uh let us know how we can help you and and as we move along. And so behalf of the uh mayor and council and uh executive staff, thank you. If I can piggy back off that, I think to also to limelight Meline for like carrying the team with with Gary's assist for sure. I think Gary's actually carrying the team, but I just want to llight Meline as being a channel.

Thank you. I agree. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, there's nothing else. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Come on, somebody. Please. A motion that we adjourn. Okay, thank you, Britain. Second. I will second. Okay, Britain moved and Darren seconded. Thank you. That we adjourn. Jeff. I I I I

Carl I There we go. Okay, then the meeting is that's unanimous. So we will the meeting adjourns at 7:20 p.m. Thank you. Thank you everybody.