Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the agenda to to do training and then talk about tonight's agenda items. However, because of the nature of some of the agenda items, particular the text amendment, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to reverse the order of those two things and if we if we wind up with tons of extra time because everyone's coming right of some kind going through these items might be a lot of training actually I think for you guys to not be seeing at least the text for the first time up at the deis. Does that make sense?

Yeah, great. So, if you'll if you'll officially indulge me in that, I'll go forward to talking about first of all, if we can talk about the residential height text limit. Okay. Um, I know that's a little weird. I'm going to get to my slides on that. Peeking at the other slides you're not supposed to have seen yet. Um so the planning commission uh prior to all of you except for Meline and Britain saw um this kind of this notion of um amending the way that we allow residential buildings to be tall we allow them to be. Um we talked about it somewhat uh a little bit late last year and then earlier this year as well. council's also seen some ideas for it and weighed in. And then so based on those conversations and where those conversations were headed, we put together a draft of how we would want to see those changes happen or how we think a good way to approach the problem. And for starters, um this is the first slide is about what it does do and what it doesn't do. And we can talk about how we measure height right now. But the first thing I think it's important to understand about residential height is where this is coming from and what the impetus for it is. Right now we we simply measure we allow residential buildings primary residential buildings on our R8 and R10 locks and all those things to be 35 ft tall. We measure we'll talk about how we measure actually let's just do that right now. We measure from what what we consider grade and there's a kind of a complicated version of what that means but we measure basically from grade to the highest point of the building. Some codes do midpoint of the pitch etc etc. We don't do that. We just go 35 ft but to the very tallest point of the of the building whatever that might be with a couple of little exceptions things like chimneys don't have to meet that etc. Uh chimneys and koopas and uninhabited domes. I don't know how many uninhabited domes there are in any in any

water heater vent water heater vents all those kinds of things. Um but those are things and Maline let me pause because you had said let's do introductions and I totally spaced it and started talking. I was like well we could do it at the end nerd let's do it. Yeah, I can do an introduction. Yeah, just because we hadn't done it last time and we're still new and getting used to everyone and most of staff is not even here. A lot of them are not here. Yeah. But let's start with staff. You guys introduce yourself and do introduce yourself. Okay. I'll introduce Pete first.

So, I'm I'm Jared uh and I am the planning uh division manager. Um, and that's all there is really to know about me. So, I'm a commuter. My feet are still soaked from this morning. So, if I seem uncharacteristically grouchy, that's I think I've been wet since 6 o'clock this morning.

Jared, what what areas when you say, so what do you what types of functions do you cover? So, I I um manage the planning division, which means I'm my fingers are in all of the pies to some degree or another. So, we have long range planning and current planning. Most of what we're involved in a lot of the time is what we would consider current planning. Becca and Grace do a lot of we we got to process all the applications and do zoning subs on all the building permits, make sure things meet setbacks. U people want zone changes, etc., all the stuff that comes to you all. We're the principal staff for um for the planning commission. And I um other than that, pretty much I read everybody's time sheets. The most important thing that I do and every third month, Becca cries in my office. Other than that,

that's what I do. Tears of joy. Um but yeah, I do I and I I do a lot of the I do a lot of the daily stuff and then I work with our our um our long range planner, Matt, is not with us tonight. I think he's going to be watching. But I work with Matt on some of the longrange projects like when we have to update the modern income housing plan, we have to do different stationary plans and things like that, different studies. I'll try to coordinate with Matt and output that where I can, but a lot of my focus is taken up with the the daily business of the planning commission and planning in the city in general. Thanks. Yeah, great. Great question. Mostly people aren't interested in my job, so I appreciate it. That's why helpful for me. So,

I'm interested in my job often. Do you realize your boss is in the room? Okay. Just I think it's good to You think he's never knew he did have Gary's finding out new things all the time. Yeah, that's I appreciate it. It's fun. Sure. And Pete? Yeah. So, I'm Pete Wolfley. I'm the city's communication director. And usually I don't get the opportunity to come to these meetings, but I'm filling in on the Zoom uh on the broadcast just making sure this meeting is recorded and and published on YouTube. I'm in charge of city websites, social media, public outreach, stuff like that.

By the way, I appreciate two weeks ago. I was in in Texas and able to participate. So I app that's helpful. I appreciate that. Beats department is what I call the cool kids department. We have fun. Everybody knows what they say. Check with cool. I saw the video when was that stuff and wrapping up. Well, that was a lot of fun to It was a lot of fun. He's kind of understanding himself, too. The communication department for him is very Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Very cool. Very good. I wish my boss was here to hear that. Well, you can play. Will you tell her? It's recorded. So, that's

got to clip it on a loop. I'll tell you that. put that on the TVs out there every time they walk by. Hi, I'm Becca. Um, I'm an associate planner. I don't know if you want to know how that works, but we do a lot. I do Oh gosh. So, like all the projects that you guys see, um, Grace and I are kind of the starter starter point for that. So, we help process um all the DRC applications um all of the like DRC stands for

development review committee. So, before it gets to you guys, it goes through DRC um and we review uh things against the code. So, we'll be like there'll be us, there'll be um engineers, fire department, everything. So hopefully by the time it gets to you, everybody's already looked at it and made sure that we're not having any crazy things that are being built against CO or proposed. Um I also help do checks on all of our building permits. Um anytime somebody builds a house or an addition to a house or a commercial project or anything like that, um Grace and I see it. Um we help with business licensing. So, we do all the zoning checks for all of business licenses. We help do engineering permits. Um, so we kind of do a little bit of everything and then of course we help get all this ready for you guys. So,

nice. I'm Gary McInn. I'm the community development director. So, in the community development department, we have planning and Jared's over planning and everything planning, but we also have building safety. So planning plans for uh the community and what can be built and what can't be built comes through the process gets approved. Then building safety takes over and approves building permits and plan checks then ensures it's constructed correctly. Another department uh division we have is engineering. So, uh, Oram basically runs a, uh, an engineering firm and we design in-house most of our projects. So, we're going to put in a water line or something like that, we design it inhouse. Uh, the engineers are also involved with planning. uh when a project comes through, we've got to look at, you know, sewer lines, coordinate with public works, make sure there's capacity, sewer, water, uh sidewalk, streets, all of those things. Um and one of the functions that uh the engineering division does is transportation engineering. And uh there were some questions about uh westerly way last time got continued. We'll talk a little bit of today about uh traffic studies and we also do economic development uh building maintenance and that's it.

Some of those in engineer you got sort of some specialist kind of stuff that yeah some specialty things or if there's a really big you know $30 million project this water tank down Yeah. like the water tank. We We'll We'll farm that out to somebody else cuz we we're not sized. You would have to put all your resources on it. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. If he thinks he didn't,

he's been around the block once or twice, too. I've seen this what he's done. I'm Carl Radwell. I'm like my third planning commission meetings and I'm just I've been or for 32 years 33 years I guess now and yeah I'm a Utah Valley so retired mining around my two grandkids so an empty neester since of 2015 so it's My name is Jeff Reeves. This is my second meeting. Been in ORM for uh about 30 years. Grew up in Provo all the way to Oram where I grew up. Uh been in the mortgage business for 28 years. Um happy to be here. Glad you came back.

Good. I'm Meline Kman. I've been on the planning commission for just over four years now. um that makes me as the veteran, but still learning constantly. I find this really interesting and I don't know, been on Norman for 10 years, stay at home mom. I have two girls, little teenagers. So, we're very busy in a very different way.

All right. I'm Michael Label. I've been here in ORM now for goodness almost 30 years. Utah boy myself, county boy. Um I spent just general background spent eight years in the Marine Corps. My degrees at University of Utah, some of them there and the rest of them over at UVU proximity helped. Um, what I do for a living is we partnership, we purchase commercial buildings in Phoenix and large municipalities and u we refurbish them, get them up to spec and we'll either change them from straight commercial to mixed use. We do a lot of that. We're in the process of getting one down in Phoenix right now. It's 16 stories, you know, 200 some thousand square feet of getting that pushed through their city council, getting all that stuff done. Um, so yeah, that's what I do day by day. You busy.

You've been on the council for how long? Oh, this is my second meeting. Okay. Times. Yeah, it's either two or three meetings. That's that's everyone other than me and Britain. He's in bed like all of us.

So, I'm Susan Madson. I uh grew up in Provo. Okay. I still call things the diagonal and my kids are like, "What?" Um and my husband and I have lived here. We moved here during COVID. Um and I am a commercial real estate appraiser. Uh I mainly work in Idaho. I am licensed in Utah, but but work for in Idaho. So, it's closer for me to go to Eastern Idaho and for people who cross Idaho and Eastern Idaho, which I think is so strange. But, um, anyway, I love ORM. This is our place. This is where we're going to be till pick the bucket. So, here I am.

Hi, uh, Darren Hawkins. Um, originally from Salt Lake. Uh, been in ORM for about 30 years now. Seems like that's a trend. Heard a lot of people say about 30. Um, I work at BYU. I'm in the political science department. I, um, am not responsible for anything that happens in this world. So, don't blame me. Um even though I study politics, I um I study international relations mostly Latin America development kinds of things uh which means quality of life for individuals. Um I yeah I had four kids. They all went to Oram High. Um very happy to be here. Um and Brutin, do you want to introduce yourself?

Yeah. Um, originally from Northern California, the rural kind where they grow rice and walnuts. Um, I've been alive for about 30 years, so I'm grateful for you guys waiting up for me. Um, I've been in ORM for about 10 years. Uh, just fell in love. I also spent a brief period of time in Provo. And when I moved to Orm, it was just so different. Uh I've been on the planning commission for a year. Is it year and a half? Year and a half. No way. Yeah.

Jeez. Uh most of my background in my career has been in investment management. Uh various aspects of real estate uh including development and finance. Um I got into planning commission because I care really strongly about keeping cities city and neighborhoods neighborhoods. That's uh how I got my elbows plunged in. Thank you. Okay, now we'll go back to building heights. Thank you everybody for but thank you. That kind of helps us start.

So, um I I'll jump back into it. We we just measured the height at 35 ft right now um for all of the zones um except for well for all the zones. And then in addition, right now there is an exclusion or an exception in the R12 and R2 figure zones. The number after it usually indicates how big the lot has to be. So R8 is an 8,000t lot minimum. R12 obviously 12,000 ft². R20 is that's basically almost halfacre lots. Th those two zones have an exception built in that allows 20% of the top floor to be up to 45 ft high as long as those setbacks are 50 ft or more from property lines. So if you're a long ways away from property lines 10 ft higher than normal in those two big zones there is no such exception for the other zones the R75 R8 etc. Um, okay. Let's see. So, we measure our height of our building that way. We talked about that. Go back to the things that this proposal does do. It doesn't. It's got kind of three main components. It differentiates between flat roofs and pitched roofs. We don't do that right now. It's just 35 ft. Uh, it lowers the base height a little bit or minimum setbacks and says if you if you meet the minimum setbacks of your zone, then you get height X and that height is less than the 35 ft that we currently allow. And then if you want to get to the 35 ft, you increase your setback a little bit. Um, it also does and it does that for in a different way for pitch roofs than it does for flat rows. Slightly different,

just lesser heights. Um, and then it does also we've implemented or are trying to implement this graduated height envelope and we'll go through that in a few minutes too. Um, it doesn't change the way that we determine height. We haven't addressed that in this proposal. Uh it doesn't remove any of those exceptions for chimneys and koopas and uninhabited domes if you're Batman or whatever. And it doesn't uh remove that 45 ft height allowance in that R12 and R20 either. It still allows for those. Although it does add a little language to qualify them because of the flat roof issue that we're trying to differentiate. Um I think the next the next thing we ought to talk about is why you're having this conversation. Um, a couple of of different things have come up as and I think it's a natural outgrowth of ORM reaching a stage of its existence where we're infilling lots. We're not building 200 lot subdivisions much anymore. We have a couple in Southwest Orm, but most that aren't that large, but um, you know, four lots and 10 lots are are kind of our our lot in life without no pun intended. That's just where we are. And a lot of times too, you're going to see homes uh that are smaller and older being removed or raised or added onto. And this would affect both new construction and any additions to existing homes. Um and there's a reason for that. I got a couple of pictures that might help make that make more sense or or make it clear why we're concerned about that. Um it's probably something that I don't know if any of you have heard the conversations about it. It has been a big conversation in the city generally. um some of these homes, especially flat roof homes, and it's not necessarily all about how tall something is, but a lot of it has to do with the mass at certain heights. We're not used to seeing um you know, 30 ft of straight up wall up and down. You usually see gable ends or you see different architectural features. That's not always the case. Um when we were first talking about this, we we talked about how the zoning code draws

this box. You're 25 ft from the front, you're 25 ft from the back, you're 10 ft from one side and 8 ft from the other. And you're 35 ft tall and you can the way it's currently written just fill in that box exactly.

And the result is not always a problem, but it's not always conducive to what's going on around it. Um, I'm going to skip ahead to something just so and we can come back. We'll go through these slides in order when we get to the meeting. But for example, this home here conforms to our standards for height. But you can see what it means to be this little rambler next to it. And uh now maybe life wouldn't be perfect if it were addressed in some way, but it might be better or easier and they might still have plenty of house out of that allowed envelope, but it wouldn't necessarily be this much house. Um so just under the proposed change, what would happen to that structure right there?

Well, yeah. and we're going to we're going to get there, but I'll give you the precursor view. So, I put this light alongside it to show you that this is the building envelope part of it. For one thing, the height of a flat roof, let's start with that because this wouldn't necessarily impact only this. It would start much lower. So, a flat roof like this would be allowed a base height at the minimum setback, which this home is located at at 8 ft would be allowed 20 ft in height out of out of base. And you could get another you could get one more foot of height for every foot you set it back further from that property level. But then in addition to that, let's say that put the home here. In addition to that, we have the graduated building height. That might make that flat roof impossible there. Might have to pitch it or pull it back even further to make it fit under the envelope. So it'll be easier to understand in a minute when we've gone through all of it. But that's the basis of it is that first things first, this would be shorter than this. This is higher than 20 ft. If this is a 12t overhead garage door or a 10ft overhead garage door, the maximum, let's say it's 10, it's probably right here be the maximum height that they'd be allowed at the minimum setback. And even that with that kind of massing, it's probably going to get impacted by this kind of envelope at least a little bit. So, it forces some different decisions as you're choosing what kind of home you going to build. You don't just necessarily fill the whole box up. So the home on Palisades that we saw a few weeks ago Yeah.

would not would not work. I drove past that a couple months ago and thought, "Oh my goodness." Yeah. I didn't I didn't I didn't put a picture of the Palisade home in the He did that on purpose. Too soon. It's It's not in there,

but I didn't really need to because I have plenty of other examples. Um this is a new home on this lot. Just as long as we're talking about it. The reason it needs to apply or I I think it needs to apply to new construction like this and to additions or additions to older homes is because of this kind of thing and this is getting more and more common as I talk to other planners online. This is happening around the country in different places. Here's the existing home. This is their addition and it meets all the codes for height. Now there's a big empty field next to it but that won't always be that way. At some point someone will come in. Well maybe it will be now actually that that's there. United States. Nobody wants stay that way for a long time. It could be viewed as an open space preservation tool in a way if we wanted to.

This is this meets I know this meets the height because I was forced to approve this in another town. I mean we measured it I don't know 25 times um during the process of approval and then after it was built when we knew everyone was going to come out and say there's no way that meets it absolutely meets the address that infill very well either. they've taken steps to deal with that as a result of that coming in. So that's why we want it for not it's going to apply to additions as well because it really needs to. Um so let's get back to the let's see what it does and doesn't do. Well, we did that already, right? What it doesn't doesn't do. That's how we measure our height. The reason that that you measure height and you can't just say it's from the grade is because the grade isn't always the same. Homes are on slopes, etc. So we have to have a a formula for doing that. And what we do essentially is take the elevation of the center point of the walls. It says four walls in the code, but not every home has four walls. Nothing is as simple as it appears. But you take the center point of the walls at the elevation of the center point of those walls and average that. That's your grade. And everything gets measured from there. That's difficult to do uh especially in the in the permit review phase. Uh we have some grading plans, but they don't always get kept to. So there's a little bit of challenge there. We're not sure how to address that yet. We're still working on that. We felt like it was important to come forward with what we could now and we'll we'll keep addressing how to deal with the grades uh and the changes in grades between lots as we go. Um the the first part of so item one the first tier of it is that it differentiates the rules and during the conversations that we had with the planning commission and the city council prior to all of you starting basically most of you starting was that pitched roofs uh would mean something that not only a completely flat roof would be a flat roof but anything less than a 312 pitch would be a flat roof would be considered a flat roof. So here's your 312. And the way we've written this draft or the way we've drafted this is

to say that 312 and up is a pitched roof and gets those allowances. Anything less than 312, so if it's 2.7 12, it's a flat roof in terms of how we view it. Okay? And the highest point will be that ridge line at whatever pitch it's at. Does that make sense everybody? So good question. So on a 312, something like that, yeah, you could have a 2 and 1/2 story. Good. If you lift it, if you lift that lower level up and have a half basement. Sure. Could because it's a 312, you could do that. That Yeah. And we I don't think we have that was one of the conversations was that we weren't necessarily as interested in limiting how people use the interiors. If they want to gable things and make a

we didn't want to limit that. the top point and this and the mass of the structure or the that's really the concern. That's right on. That's exactly what everyone has been more concerned about whether they realize it or not. That's as we've talked about it that's come out. What's bothered people is really the mess and that top point. So basically maintaining the aesthetic of the neighborhood.

Yeah. or and and even if people want to choose different styles, there was a lot of conversation about not wanting to necessarily limit how people want to view more modern roof pitches and slopes and and aesthetics, but rather how it's how it is aesthetically in context with stuff around it. And that's the reason for the envelope and because that forces it to address at least to some degree that it's not on its own in a giant field that has neighbors that might only be 16 ft away. So, yeah. Exactly. Um let's see the second part is the allowances. So currently like I said we allow 35 ft just in in the rewrite in the draft that we've proposed the minimum at the minimum setback. So let's let's stick with sideyards as a conversation. Sideyard minimum setback in the R8 zone and in all of these frankly is 8 ft.

It's a little more complicated than that but let's just call it 8 ft. So at 8 ft you could have 30 ft of height for your your um at the minimum setback. That's right now we'd say 35. We're going to drop that 5 ft or we're going to suggest dropping that 5 ft and saying every additional foot that you go fine. You can go up another foot of height. Uh remember this is only one tier of it. We also have the building envelope to deal with. But this would be the base kind of consideration. You're at 30 ft. You can go up to 35 depending on how far you are from the property line. increase setback in a flat roof department. That number would be 20. Like we said when we were first looking at that uh other home in that photograph 20T and then one foot of additional setback to 1T additional height is 24 ft. And that 24 ft is not 25 but only because I couldn't find a code that called it 25. I found a lot of codes in different cities that address 24 ft for a maximum for flat roofs. And so I thought we'd go just to the 24 in case they know something that I couldn't figure out. the reason that's just your brutal honesty from Jared. 24 seems to be an an industry standard for lack of a better um pitched roofs at the minimum setbacks. If your roof is pitched, you have that 35 that we've always dealt with because this did start become a problem until we started seeing flat roof structures coming in. So consumption is 3 to 12 that 3 to 12 pitch you're going to have a little more um has less mass of that upper level at that 35 30 you're going to start at 30 get to that 35 so it's a little more it's your to do and that's in again sorry the R12 and the R20 zones they're naturally further away their setbacks are greater anyway so we've allowed them the 35 and there's no um there's no correlated sort of increase because they already had that exception built in for the 45 and That's a pretty good exception. We haven't messed with that in the draft. They're still allowed to have 20% of the total roof area. Not the whole thing, but 20% of it up to that 45

ft as long as it's at least 50 ft from property. We've left that alone. That hasn't seemed to be a problem. I couldn't find a case where that has been an issue. So, we've left that alone. However, with flat roofs becoming more popular, even on big lots like that. Um, we did a minimum set minimum setbacks for those two zones 12 and 20, 24 ft in height. that maximum from the here in the other zones. And then again that graded scale 1 ft additional to 1 ft additional height up to 28 ft. And we gave them the same exception but reduced that exception to 32 ft instead of the 45. It's flat roof. We're trying to make those less obtrusive because of the mass up. So 32 again 32 ft of height with a flat roof structure. It would only be 20% of the total roof area. But that's still quite a lot of mass. So does that make sense to everybody? At least what the the angle from which we're approaching any greater things. Okay. Um the third part is the graduated building height and we what we've written is based on some other cities that are currently doing this. Um the height of all principal dwellings in single family residential zones is subject to limitation. Also, in addition to those other things we just went through by the graduated height envelope that's created by starting a point at a property line 8 ft above ground and then sloping a line at a 45 degree angle toward the center of the lot. The entire building needs to fit under that envelope and we'll go through the we have a couple of diagrams to show what that means with some exceptions. Normers and gables are accepted uh from that. So because they're architectural feature and they don't have that same kind of mass, we have a couple of rules written into the draft as well about how wide the dormers can be and how much of the wall face a gable can be. No more than 25% of a facade length should be that gable end. So it's it's really not a full gabled end, but just the a gabled portion a larger gable portion of a of a different

facade would be allowed to extend above no more than 1.75 times higher than the point of intersection with the envelope. So, it's easier to show on the on the should I just go to those. I'm sorry.

Here we go. Um, I have that in there for some reason. Don't know why. Sorry. This I'll go to another one in just a second. But this is basically we we take the property line. So, let's focus on the side for a minute here. This gabled end on the property line. We go up 8 ft. Draw an imaginary line and start from that point and draw 45°ree angle. and it creates this plane and nothing's supposed to stick out from that plane unless it's a gable end or a dormer. Right? So here's your gable end sticking out of it. And what that 1.75 means is that this right here is where it intersects the envelope. Where the gable intersects the envelope. We calculate how far that is up. How tall that is. Because I'm not good at math. Let's say it's 10 ft. Even though it's probably more than 10 ft. It's 10 ft. You get 1.75. Your gable end can be 17 1/2 ft to the top of the gable. Does that make sense? that would be whatever number it happens to be. But nothing regardless of that um it still has to fit under the maximum height because you get 1.75 times doesn't mean you get to go 39 ft because that's 1.7 times where it intersected the envelope. You get 35 your maximum. And on something like the dormer, your maximum is determined by it being no more that there's controls about how how far they have to be apart from these dorms. And then also they can't be they can't extend even though they extend above the envelope, they can't extend above the ridge line of the roof that they're on. So the the dormers have to stay below the ridge line they're on. Does that make sense?

Yeah. This that's why that's the point of this diagram. It shows you both situations. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. I know it's a little weird, but that's how we would want to try to control it. That does a couple of things as you look at. So, this envelope concept is brand new uh to us to right develop it. Okay. Right. Right. Cities are starting to use it all over. Sure. Sure. But that's that's how they've somebody came up with doing that in infill in infill environments. Mil Creek is doing it. Um it makes sense. It it it it helps to kind of either force the the roof lines down if they're flat. Yeah.

Or force something like the gables so that it it reduces the mass of those close property lines. That's really the point.

So, as you look at um this this diagram again, this kind of shows the same thing. There's your 45 degree graduated plane. There's your projecting gable and it can be 1.75 times. Uh, and if this was a dormer, and it could be a dormer or a gable, just depends on the size and the kind of location. It can't extend above that ridge line right there where the house goes past. Uh, and it it can't be more than 1.75 times this distance here. There's 8 ft of property line, but look how close that's the property line. Let's say that I don't know if that's an 8ft property line in the diagram, but I assume it is. Um, that's very close. So, instead of having that maximum height be filled up by a flat roof, it it matters when you're next to this house. That's a lot more easy to live by and kind of fits into the context more than that does. It just does. Now, the the reason that we wanted to not outlaw flat roofs or whatever, well, for one thing, it's state code. You can't determine absolutely what kind of require a certain pitch. You can regulate the heights differently, though. So I don't I don't think it would be we're not trying to we're not trying to force one kind of architecture on anybody, but we are trying to say that architecture needs to be put in context. And this rule would force you to do one of several things. Reduce the overall height. Don't pull it up too far the foundation too far up out of if you're doing a flat roof or a low pitched roof or whatever. Don't pull that foundation up too much because you're going to hit your height limitations. or include greater setbacks if you want to be if you want to have all those flat roofs and have enough property to have them far enough away that we don't have that kind of mass 30 ft in the air looming above a neighbor and this only gets exacerbated when it's slow.

So I hope that makes sense. Is that kind of makes sense? Jared, yeah. Can I could I ask a question? Yeah. You made a lot of progress on this since last heard about it. Sure. So I' I've been impressed with the amount of detail that you think innight. Can you specify a little bit more about the tradeoffs that as you are making this proposal that you had had to think through? In other words, what were the other options that you were considering and what's the logic of making this proposal versus those?

Sure. And I think that's a great that's a great question, Quinn. For me, you you start with the worst to We start with the most restrictive thing and work backward from there. And the the goal is always to do to do the best for as many people as you can and least harm to as few people as you can. Um we want to respect we want any code to to affect the change that we're looking for. But that change just shouldn't be just the goal shouldn't be just to restrict, right? That these are people's personal properties and we want to respect property rights people have and have them use these properties to the degree they want to. So I start by thinking we can just reduce heights overall and say we just allow feet of height or 28 ft of height or whatever would be you know more accessible or say we don't allow third stories period we talked about a minute ago Carl Ro it um say we don't allow third stories sorry um that would help reduce some heights but I it's overly restrict that's overly restrictive to me I think just in my personal opinion and I don't think it does as much good as trying to address the height and mass thing this was the best way to to address the issue without really restricting height a lot or blanket um just trying to make it impossible to build flat roofs. I was trying to avoid saying it's not possible to build flat roofs or inverted pitches or really low pitches or anything like that without um allowing for the more egregious kind of uses of that allowance. So the things that we jettisoned were really just ideas of flat roofs are not possible or they're really low like 12 ft or 14 ft. So for example Quinn in this example here in this photograph here flat roofs only get um say 20 ft at the property line that might be right here but that might not fit in that graduated envelope. So you might not be if your if your lot is too narrow you may not be able to do a flat roof. There will be cases where that's not possible. But I

didn't want to make that the attempt here is to not make that yeah an absolute you you just won't be able to do flat roofs at certain at certain properties. You could have a proper flat roof have be lower and if you increase your setback and and reduce your impact then you can do a higher flat roof too. Um at a certain point the mass is just too much even if you're you know 30 feet away. But that's what we were trying to to accomplish. And the ideas that we generated said were all just kind of more cloned than this. As complicated as this seems at the outset, it's better than the alternative to me that is just too risk 12 ft. No, nobody builds them anymore at all. There are some designs that are really lovely. They can be done without impacting neighbors adversity. That's a hope. One tradeoff is this is harder for us as staff to administer, but we think it's an appropriate tradeoff. Uh, and the reason, well, one of the reasons why we wanted to go this way is this will allow probably 99% of all the homes that you see out there will not be affected by this new ordinance. for the vast majority of people it will not impact what they're already doing or and so having this whether we had this code or not 99% would still go forward not even think about it this will handle the one weird situation that in 20 years I've seen somebody build the box rather than a home within the box. Yeah. Another quick question. So the you talked about average grade. How does buildup from curb

some people like to build up and make their grade line much higher than four, five, six feet from the curb. How does this uh how does that apply to this? That's a fantastic question. And we right now we would be reviewing the heights of these buildings as they come in for a permit. And that permit won't tell me exactly how far they're building up necessarily. We have do the 8 ft from the the curve. They might still You still have your We might still have 4 ft of rise that I can't account for, but I'm still going to have that 8 foot and it's going to need to be You just clicked that.

But that's why that's why we're still we're not done. This is the first say the first half, but it's the first 70% of what we need to do. We've still got to figure out how to address the grade issues because it's just going to be harder and harder to do. We review plans and buildings and the building has like an absolute height on these plants and then out in the field that can get affected two or three feet in the best cases and six and seven in the worst. What's not addressed here if you look at this photo is the situation you're talking about. This is an established neighborhood. Somebody takes down a home and then will bring in five feet of fill because they may want a basement with nine foot ceilings and what will determine the bottom floor of that basement is where the sewer line is out in the road because they've got to connect. And so sometimes people will literally bring in five feet of fill so that they can get that basement up and then they burm it up. And our code right now would say well at their finished grade that's where we start measuring. So they get 5 feet of fill and then we measure from that 5 ft of

with the envelope. You're going to the property line with the envelope. Yeah. Exactly. And so we're going to have to be but we won't the problem is we're not going to know necessarily but it allows us to say look we're close to we're close to limits here so we can call up the contractor on a on a review like this and say we're pretty close to what we're going to allow for height. So what are you planning to do on this slide? If you're going to punch that hole

you're going to have to be careful because we get complaints and get out in the field and find that you're violating these things. It's going to be a problem. So we need people to live well within the limits and so at least let us do that and but we do need to find more ways to address the grade differences because it's a challenge out there. People are building more and more to the limits. Construction is expensive, right? No one's no one's underdoing it out there. So um it's not a moment for people to go small. This is going to push boundaries everywhere though. Yeah. It's for opinion experience. When it's when it's framed and someone made a mistake and we're off by a foot, what happens? chaos ensues. Yeah,

it's difficult. So, we try to catch them as we can. That's why I I would like to have this kind of thing one more layer in the reviews. And it is a trade-off like Quinn mentioned and Gary addressed. It's a trade-off, but it allows us at least to say this is right on the line and right on the line could end in disaster. So, you might want to back that off. If you're planning to bring in 5 ft of fill, don't do that. Can you get by with two? So for clarification, we will you guys are intending to continue to look at the other part of the code which is how we absolutely we need to figure that out. And so just to for future thinking I mean we also need to watch the it's not just same neighborhood filling up but it's the new neighborhoods next to old neighborhoods subdivision to subdivision

subdivision. Yeah. It's the it's the mic the lot that's six feet lower or gets raised and brought up six feet is a microcosm of that subdivision to subdivision problem that we can't have too. There's infill subdivisions and there's infill lots and they're both they're both tricky. We have to we don't have any tools to really address it right now. It's our first step toward this is a step forward in making sure we can start looking at houses and

and this is this is how it's going to be in or we're going to be addressing these kinds of things. are going to be slipping homes into lots that have the last lot in 45 that didn't get built or Gary's home I burn it down me or something and you have to rebuild it. Just keep that in your way. I will instantly bring in 10 ft. No doubt about those PVC structures they do in California. You put the structure on that property so the neighbors can all see. I love that.

Have you Have you ever seen one of those? Like in Laguna Beach, it when you're building on their hillside, you have to put this PVC structure up represents what you're building. If all the neighbors can see people will require balloons have to go up the show at the corners and until the wind blows and then it's all slower than starts to you know

dissipate. But but this is a big provo or uh Provo Orum uh American Fork. They have areas that were built, you know, 50 60 70 80 years ago and they're they're done. And our code and the codes in those communities typically have been designed for a green field situation where you can come out and just build. We're not we haven't really had to think about these issues in infill because usually when a subdivision comes in at the same time now you have the sewer and storm water flows all together the grades go but now we have a 2acre parcel of an orchard and now when it comes in because of its configuration it may not h it may have to flow the opposite way that the neighbors sewer and storm water flow be able to hook into our system, which means now they're bringing in five, six, seven, eight feet of fill to make it work.

Mhm. What I've seen with other cities and what they've done is they've just used the the sidewalk as the baseline and they say we'll allow x amount of feet based on these conditions above sidewalk because that's the constant within the neighborhood. So they've just used that and said that's baseline idea. measure everything from there. Then you at least you know what you're dealing with exactly. So I'll go through these slides again in the public for the public hearing but I just wanted felt like it would be helpful for you to get a for shot at. So I'll try to be not boring in the public hearing part

any you have any questions before because we got 10 minutes roughly a little 10 minutes next to the meeting. We need a little time to reset in there. So, any questions about this one? Do you have any questions about the other item about other items on the night? We have the uh the re uh the whatever the weather traffic study that we wanted to take a look at. Yeah. Can he introduce himself and himself too? Would you mind introducing yourself? John Dorney here traffic engineer got the study really good news. He'll go he'll answer questions about that for you if you want out.

I read it before I went to bed last night. I go right to sleep. No, it was actually interesting. It's actually really interesting. Not a bad It's not bad as far as traffic impact studies go. Takes more. Yeah, definitely. Um, so we have Western Bay and then the other is uh 355 West University Parkway. Another request for a reszone uh to the C2 zone from an RA. Are you guys all familiar with I'm familiar with the property property the old water rec water conservancy district place it's uh been in the R8 zone been non-conforming for a long time they want to resone that it's in the general plan to be commercial um you go um who from staff was at the neighborhood meeting for that one

uh we don't attend the neighborhood meetings just the developer just the developer we we don't go to the neighborhood meetings so that it doesn't get the veneer of a a city sponsored function. So, we we purposely don't go. Um, a lot of folks concerned about uh different things there. We expect to hear some folks tonight. Uh, it is it is worth noting that the commercial zone, it is does have commercial zoning around it, but that commercial zoning is called PD5. It's not the C2 zone. It's a land development zone. Has more restricted uses. Uh, there that's the Woodberry. Sorry. So everything to the east of that property is multip

land development five and it's just a it's it means that they wrote a zone just for that those properties and it's a commercial zone the biggest difference between it and C2 would just be a limited number of uses. So the C2 zone has a whole bunch of different uses PD it allows um different types of different structures. Yes. Um, most of the other stuff is left alone. Setbacks, landscaping requirements, buffering, etc. Same. Parking ratios are the same. But the PD5 only allows uh it doesn't allow notably like car lots or amusements open. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry, but I think another thing with the PD is they have to have a site plan that goes with it. Yes,

they're locked into the site plans so that the city knows, okay, this is what they're going to build here. Um whereas with the C2 it's just so they've shown you they've shown you a concept plan because we ask them to do that when they do reszones but PD zoning like like like Erin is saying is is your that site plan becomes part of your zone in the C2 zone the concept is you're not bound by that your zoning is C2

and that's an important thing to remember. Uh, I worked in a community where it was zoned a similar type zone to a CQ zone and it was down by Utah Valley uh, Regional Medical Center. It was on 8th north and fifth west and they had a corner and they showed several uh office buildings medical they needed that came in said this is what we wanted they wanted to build and it got reszoned to that generic zone. Now when it's reszoned to a generic zone any use of that zone is a permitted use. Well, their letters of intent kind of fell through and they ended up building a gas station and not the office buildings. And I had council members ask me, you know, if I would have known they could have built a gas station, I never would have reszoned this. So just be aware if something gets uh reszoned to a generic zone, what the council literally is saying by doing that is any use in this zone at this location is appropriate in moral case.

But it's got gandalfos. So what it's got gandalfos in it. Yeah. So is C2 sorry C2 is probably most of the parkway like on the other side of the street further imagine and is the BB5 goes how far east from Oh that's a that's a good question. I have to pull up a map but I go ways west but so it's like the crispy cream of C2. It's in the freeway access court. The highway service zone west too. And highway services is is a little more restrictive than C2, but not as restricted as the PD5. And University Parkway itself is a mix of PDS and it is different than C2.

You can also require you said in your document that it has there would be some type of margin between the current residential area. Yeah, there's structures that it's a buffer requirement. So there has to be at least a 10-ft uh landscape strip and a wall between commercial zoning and the residential zoning that's adjacent to it. That would be the case in so right now. Yeah. And then a parking lot. So what what would you require? 10 ft beyond the wall to the north of the wall and then Well, 10 Yeah. The the wall would be at the typically at the property line where it is now I think. Yeah. typically have the property land and then you do 10 ft of landscaping on the other side of that where they can do or you can do a structure.

Well, the structure might even have more setback. The structure has to be set back has to equal the height of your structure at least. Okay. So, if your structure is 30 ft tall, I need 20 more ft of setback, too. It just it just depends. The buffer at least the 10 foot is absolute. You'd have to be only a 10ft building set back. That make sense? I read through the concerns in there that one of the ones was the parking lot lighting and there's some things I've worked with areas where they have the s motion sensor lights that go off at night till somebody or go real low and then come on.

That's a good that's a good concern and we we do with site planning and we would do this with PE5 or with C2 regardless of what they're doing. We ask for phototric plans that'll show zero candles at the property line. So if they're redeveloping that parking lot, we would want this too for sure. I'm just wondering what's the standard for the fence between residential and commercial required 7T usually. So the one that's there is varying in height. Does that mean that's going to be replaced or does that stay the same?

In a it would depend on the site plan. So if if it came through for a site plan, the planning commission might feel like you needed more height on it or a uniform height. It would just depend and that would probably depend on the uses and how close they were to it. I would guess but it can be you can allow you can allow up to eight feet is required at least seven the question that came to mind for me on this one was okay did they do they're proposing to do in a different zone a different C zone do they need C2 to do this or not uh no you could be other options

what they're proposing in the PD5 actually um the uses that they're kind of proposing in the building the way it's done in the etc. You could do that. They could they could do that in the PD5. Um I I couldn't say off the top of my head, but I believe you could do it in the C1. Well, they're not proposing you the the biggest difference between car sales and gas stations, things like that. And you can't do those in the in the C1 or the P5. But they're not proposing those either. So, not sure. But just keep in mind if it does get reszoned C2, that laundry list of zones, do those things,

any of those can be put in and are legal to use. And if it's reszone, they would have a vested right to those uses if they made an application.

That's right. So you know and and oftent times people come in best intention my intention is to do this use and then market changes or different things change and boy the interest clock's running I got to do something go through what the legal uses are and you pick one that works best. So ju just just part of our ongoing training with the planning commission is to help you be aware of all of the ramifications of decisions and actions.

What's the best way to handle that if you don't want uh and I know we have to go to sorry I we we need and we can talk about this more and then we continue to go but yeah but I think it should it's a good conversation to have out in the open too. I mean in the I'm not trying to cut you off. We literally have like four minutes. Can you take like 10 seconds to introduce yourself? And we were introducing the staff. Yes. I'm Aaron Mcnite uh from the city attorney's office. Attorney straight down. You guys the wall and the I'll see you all in there. Straight down. So, hey. Yeah. We'll adjourn till our regular meeting. Thank you.

Thanks for making sure you've introduced yourself. trying to cut into two minutes. I don't have a javelin here, but it didn't mean to cut and I felt bad because it sounds like I cut you off, but I'm like I'm not move. That's why we need a chair. That's why keeps us where we should be. Answer your question. I think you should ask every how you handle. How are you? You're fine.

I know. The closer we get, the happier I am. There's no doubt about that. You've carried big loads, Mr. Well, I see what three classes, two 200s and a 270. On the far side, how's your semester been? No, and not much administrative load. Must be delightful. Yeah, that sounds charming.

It's been refreshing. Can you usually hear? Uh he I think he comes if we need help with the auto audio. Well, maybe. Oh, because we have uh somebody zooming in. Um do we I don't know. That that may be it. Yeah. Or maybe is Was Grace here? No, she I think she often handled that. Maybe because she's out there. What's that?

What are you looking for?

Yeah. That's what there's probably crying. He thought I was something else. I'm sorry.

Test test test. Thanks stand.

Ready? We will call this uh meeting of the ORM city planning commission to order at 5:32 p.m. on April 1st, 2026 in the ORM city council chambers. And we will begin with an invocation by Susan Mat. Our heavenly father, we're grateful for the opportunity that we have to be here tonight. We're thankful for the wonderful city we live in and for the good people that surround us each day. Bless us tonight that we can uh be thoughtful and uh be able to contemplate the best solutions for our community. We're thankful for the beauties of nature that we are surrounded by and we're so fortunate to live here. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. Our first item is the consent agenda item. It's 3.1. Approval of the meeting minutes from March 18th, 2026 planning commission meeting, but those were not posted. So, we we'll have to bring them to you next time. Again, I apologize.

Yeah, we'll have to put that off. So, do we Gary, just as point of order, do we need to table that to the next or just move on? We'll just move on. Excellent. So, we will we have no action items, so we will move on to item 5.1, which was continued from our previous meeting. Westerly Way 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 plan residential development and to amend appendix KK site plan farm haven to include the subject property. Okay, Jerry,

thank you. Um, so I have the I have the slides from the previous hearing uh with us as well and uh John Dory, the city's engineering u specialist on transportation and traffic is here to address some of those concerns that you had. Um I can buzz back through these for the continued hearing or we can is there are do you have other questions? Do you want me to go through them quickly for the record or what what would you like? Let's just do a brief recap.

So as you said this is at 1875 South Geneva Road. a subject property here. Uh this is where the original the existing approved PRD farm haven is located. This is the additional property that the applicants would like to include with it. Making that modification uh that go from cottages um small lot homes to twin homes in that change as well in the text. So this is a kind of a joint text amendment and zone map amendment. This part would be map amendment and this would be text amendment to include all of it and change them into twin homes. Um, subject property is in the OS5 zone right now. So, this is OS5. This is that existing Farm Haven PRD. You got Geneva Road here and 2000 South. Uh, the Whit Stone uh estate subdivision was approved uh just recently and the uh property is in this uh low density residential southwest uh land use category. It does allow for PRDS um and and the other residential zonings. Um the existing PRD zone is in this area. This is so the existing Farm Haven. You that's that property line that you could see before. This is the additional property that would be coming in. And as I said, they'd be going to twin homes. Um they proposed parking throughout three different locations. People in the PRD would have access to this parking and this parking and this parking in addition to their driveways and homes. This is the Autism Academy. Um it it'll be adjacent but not truly integrated. Uh this is an access that they've proposed that would provide emergency access up into the subdivision. Uh but the principal access in and out of subdivision would be by 800 West and this new road going out into the White Stoates. Um this is the existing Farm Haven site plan. Uh that so we'll be amending this site plan to superimpose that site plan instead. That's the amendment portion.

Um as I said, these are sort of cottage lots. They'd be going to the twin homes. Uh there are 44 proposed twin home lots. That's about six units per acre. Um these are ORM standard sublocal streets. So there's curb gutter sidewalk and park strips. All of these rights of way would be dedicated streets. Not the parking lot areas, but the roads coming through. um 20 foot driveways, two-car garages. There's 39 additional guest parking spaces in those three areas and perimeter fencing would be part of this as well. Um these are the elevations that were proposed. Uh again, I think we me we did mention this last time. This rear elevation would need to include more of the stone or brick uh to meet the requirements uh that we have for PRDS. Generally, the cottages when they were approved did include that. the the new elevations would have to be revamped a little bit to make that to meet those requirements, but we could could do that easily um as a condition. So, that's what I have. Um is there do you have any questions? Do you remember this okay from last time or is there anything you need clarification on?

I do have a question. Can you go back to the slide of what's currently zoned? Yeah, for that the intention was always to have it connect south into um the the neighborhood to the south. Yes. Which I know it's Parley's. No, it's a par. No, sorry. I just totally bl the neighborhood to the south is pain crossing. That's what I know it starts with a P and that's where my brain was. um and then connect into whatever development came into what was then the um Wilkerson Farms Wilkerson Farms.

So I'm still struggling a little bit on the road thing. So we'll come back to it. But I wanted to just clarify that point at this. It did it did always include a future connection out through this way and one out to what's become white sort of states now. Yes. Anticipating those would develop. Okay. Are there any questions for staff at this point? Susan, I have one question and uh I drove by an additional time this last week down by there and it seems that there is construction that's occurring south of the parking lot of the school right on what's happening there.

There are I'll get this wrong. You can ask the applicant as well. I I know we did have a change in the I think they're redoing some storm drain storm drain materials or something. I forget what permit it was but there there is a small project going on there as well. Any other questions at this time? Okay, I'm going to ask the applicant. Yeah, next is applicant if the applicant would like to come forward and add anything um before we start having further discussion.

Hi, I'm Trisha Nelson and I'm just happy to answer any questions that you guys might have about the project. I think Susan, do you want to ask your question specifically to her? I guess my question is regarding um traffic and if you I I I think my biggest concern is traffic and if all of that is going south instead of some of it going west to Geneva Road. Yeah. Um I could see if I were a neighbor on the south that would be concerning to me and I just wonder your thoughts on that or

Yeah. No, thank you for the question. And I think um initially as as was noted the project was called Farm Haven because we believed we genuinely believed that this would be surrounded by farmland. So although they made us stub those roads as you saw in the approved PRD um we never anticipated those roads to ever be get be used but they required stubbing per city code um because even though we were assured that it this Wilkerson's farm would be there forever um that obviously didn't happen and this projects has been in the work for years and I think the concern with keeping that access as an access that goes all the way to Geneva Road is all of those folks from the new proposed development would come right through this community um and and through the other community. And whereas if we can um create some situations where we can really support the neighborhood in Payton's Crossing in in other ways rather than creating an access that potentially will open them up for traffic coming in through that way and going out to neighbor road when there's traffic, different things. We we feel like this is the this after talking with city planners and the traffic study folks, we felt like this was the best way to support all of us in a in a less than ideal situation than we were hoping for because we certainly can empathize with the concerns of the neighborhood neighborhood to this to the south there and we have concerns as well about the traffic coming from Whit Stone Estates. So certainly a a a challenging situation, but we never anticipate on this plan for all those units from Whittown to come right through our neighborhood as well. So it's it's tricky situation.

Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know if there's if there's more because basically the other one was 25 units and this one my other question was this is 44 44 addition. Yeah. Okay. So there's a lot of questions about traffic. Would you like to come up John and help answer questions? John Dory, City of Warren Engineering back up. Super.

So, you have questions I can answer. First of all, I didn't write this. I reviewed it. Um, anything specific that you're I I'll start with mine, which is I noticed in the report that it says that 2000 South is a minor arterial. Is there a reason why it's only a minor considering all the changes that have happened in Southwest Orm? Um it's it's a minor on ours master plan and it's also a minor on provos. And so when you do a major arterial that's five lane roads that's 20 30,000 cars a day. So jump between them. Um the travel demand modeling actually we're doing it right now for another project on 200 south 2000 south

and we're looking in the future it might be around 10 11,000 trips a day even with Lake View Parkway going in. We know it's a connection east and west to Sand Hill and Lake View, but until all that figures out, it's we we traffic is big kind of like a small, medium, large uh arterial major arterials are kind of the large. These minor arterials and collectors are medium and then you got the local roads. So 11, 12, 13,000 cars a day is about a threelane road type of expectation and that's what Provo has. we share that boundary, so we kind of talk back and forth, but the threelane road is what we have planned up to the roundabout and over to Lake View. So,

thank you for that clarification. Uh, do you have a Well, go ahead. Yeah, in a sec. We're going to have Susan's going to go first and then

Okay. Just from our last conversation, uh last time we discussed this, um we had someone who lives in the subdivision south who expressed concern with all of that traffic going down 800 West. Um, and if you now have 44 homes that are going south, plus you'll have neighboring, see now I can't remember either that's on the east side that will be going in. Those will be funneling because there's no left turn down onto 2000 as per Provo City's requirement or only one of them will allow a left turn. both of the streets that will be coming in.

It doesn't meet our access management standards either. Um they have to be on collector roads or arterial roads certain distances apart from each other. And since 800 west is too close to I think it's 7 or 750 then that need needed to be either not there or restricted. And so that's part of the reason Provo does that. That's also what we do as an entity. Um,

so I guess my concern is for those homes that live along 800 West, they now have 44 from this and 60 whatever from the other one now funneling down their road and you can kind of see how that would be concern to them. I just wondering if you had something that could help alleviate their concerns with that.

So in the traffic world, we we estimate how much traffic a house will generate. Provo and ORM have said we don't believe the national average of being 10 trips a day. We think it's 14 trips a day and provos says 11.7 trips a day. So we first apply this local standard of traffic for us and then we try to guess where people go. We you know we you look at the roads and you say how would I get out of here? How would I get in here? And it's kind of an estimate. Um again it's small, medium and large. In a traffic world, 51, 12, and 17 is the same number. It's small. But when you have 200 lefts, that requires usually a signal or something. So again, there's there's ranges. Are we going to are these numbers going to be exactly like it says in the report in real life? No. But it's kind of a smell test. And part of the reason 800 West was stubbed was that it had planned for us as a city to go through. Um, we're also stubbing Whit Stone to Cherry Hill, even though we're told Cherry Hill will never develop. So, anything that's not a culde-sac or a stub is just planned to go through. Part of that is not so much traffic cuz there could be one access or one road going straight to 2000 and the traffic can handle it. It's usually fire requires two accesses and then our um utilities We typically like to loop our water to have multiple ways in and there's some science and physics behind it and when you work on something you can still have it open and plus the pressure normalizes. So the traffic can handle one road because it's not very much. Right now there's 2500 trips a day on 2000 South. This adds I think 1,500. The capacity is about 15,000 trips a

day. So, um, we don't think 100% of the traffic will go down 8 West because of, you know, if you live over by the tracks on Whiteststone, you're not going to go up 8 West and meander around. You're going to go to the next. So, it's it is kind of a guess, but we did some math. If you look at 145 trips in an hour, peak hour, 88 of those are going in. Um that's like 1.2 a minute and they're going in. Those are all three developments. So this traffic study included the Provo development, Whiteststone development, and Waverly development. Westerly development. I called it Waverly. Westerly. Um so if you're looking at 80 trips in the peak hour going home, they're going to all three developments with four or five accesses. So when you have one car a minute, um that's not at one axis, that's at five different ones. So the magnitude of this is considered small. Does it quantify the effects of people who live on the road? It does not because traffic looks at capacity levels.

Okay. Micah, you had a question. I guess my major I guess my major question is kind of related to what we were talking about before with regards to what Froolo City is going to require on 2000. Do we have any definitive response from them as yet as far as because I know that there was discussion about medians etc.

We've gone through three or four iterations. It came across us as a pork chop they call it. Pork chops don't work. People can cut them. And so we ask Provo, hey, what do you want in lie of this pork chop? They're like median. Um they can decide not to put it in or not. Again, it our excess management standards if it was our 100% review, we we'd have them do the same. Um but it doesn't you have the right to eliminate that from our review and Provo has the right to eliminate it from theirs. So Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you,

Jeff. So I think I know the answer to this question but just want to clarify if from your opinion which is more expert than mine um do you have any concerns about the traffic here on this ignoring the human element of living there right I mean from a quantitative level of service you get the grades A B CDE E F um it's not it's from a traffic point of view It's on the small side. Yeah.

Um when you take 1,500 trips a day from all three developments and you send them down all the different streets and accesses, it it ends up being 3 to 400 maybe on the worst case of many of the roads. So just the Westerly has 20 trips driving in the peak hour um and about 500 in a day. Yeah. So, um, will people notice a difference? Yes. When you live on a dead end street, no one's going through, right? Right now. So, that perception is going to be a little bit harder.

And would adding access from Geneva mitigate any concerns. I I was there this morning and I just my comment I thought if I were coming from the north and I was turning left, you know, off to you that that seems to in some ways complicate the traffic too because you have people trying to turn left, they've got a light whereas on 2000 you have a light and I was just curious if you have any thoughts on that. Yeah, anything open the original plan, excuse me, that you saw has kind of a legitimate road. This is more cirudous with a gate. And so,

um, yes, anything out to Geneva would make things way different and better. U would have to approve it. It might affect our utilities cuz if we don't have a water line and and our sewer and stuff out in Geneva, then that kind of defeats that two access purpose. But yeah, a road out to Geneva would definitely reduce traffic for the neighborhood. So, um Darren had a question, but there Okay, Darren. So, sorry if somebody else. Okay. Uh last time it seems like you had uh could we see a map that shows kind of the bigger I think you had one last time, Jared, that shows the three access all of the roads.

Yeah, I had the um because we had Whiteststone on the same agenda. So, I had uh the slides from Whit Stone, too. Oh, I can find those. We don't have a head. I don't have that on here. I should Gary answer make a comment while you look that up and then we can come back to Yeah, just pull it up on like Google Maps or something. Okay,

I I just want to reiterate something that John said. What a traffic study does is it talks about the operational aspect of the street. It doesn't talk about whether people like it. And that's a really important distinction. So most of us probably live on what we would call a local road. It's in a subdivision. There's no striping. The speed limit's 25 miles an hour. That road in front of your house from an operational standpoint can probably handle 10,000 vehicle trips a day. You probably wouldn't like that would be my guess. As a matter of fact, Provo at one time uh they build their local roads to normal typical standards which means operationally you could handle 10,000 trips a day on one road. So operationally, if there were only one road into all of forgetting about public safety, there was only one road into all of this operationally uh from a traffic standpoint, we would say that works. Now, what Provo did is they came in and actually uh imposed what they called the livability standard. said, "Ooperationally, we may configure our roads and build them to a 10,000 trip a day standard, but once you hit 1,500 trips a day on any segment of the local road, that triggers additional traffic mitigation issues to look at." Uh, ORM doesn't necessarily have that. So, when you're looking at a traffic study for this area, it's not going to tell you

whether you should recommend a reason or not. What it will tell you is operationally where the traffic is now and with a lot of experience where we think it will probably go in the future and where it will be at. Um, can the road system handle it? Yes. Will neighbors like it? Probably not. I moved into an area that connected a road that was a dead-end street. And once it got connected and now through traffic came through, lots of neighbors in the area loved it because there was more connectivity. My neighbor hated it and ended up moving because they didn't like that. They wanted to be on a deadend road. And so the traffic study would not have told you whether you should recommend approval of a reszone or not. It just gives you an indication of operationally what we project will be happening in the area.

Thank you. Is it just a because he was an ex technically. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And actually that um so I I had two questions and that was addressing one of them. But since we have the map up here. So uh so just for clarification then thank you. This is the map I was intending you to put up. So thank you. This is what I meant cuz we've been talking about this 800 West. So 800 West is completely open. You can turn any direction off to and on to 800 West from 2000 here. But the other two are not or one of them. Can you my pointer here? That one that he's pointing at will be as shown restricted to a right in right out. Okay.

And then the further one to the east is a full movement. And both of the well the one to the east lines up with one to the south in Provo. Okay. So on both sides uh it would be full. No no no restrictions. It's just that middle one that has a right in right out. Okay. And what that what the reasoning is right now it's probably not needed. When Lake View goes all the way to uh Geneva and everything's going and things are moving and people are turning it's um probably needed in the future. Yeah.

Okay. And then uh to your points Gary, so yeah, this was one of my main questions is yeah, as I read the traffic study, I realized that and you've put words into this that it's mostly yeah, sort of a utility kind of a measurement. I think that was the word you used about, you know, can the streets handle it? Um so my question was ORM has no guidance or regulation on how many trips a day we should be seeing on residential streets. It sounds like Provo has a little bit of that, but we don't have any. We We don't have a livability standard that ORM has put into its ordinances. And I don't Does Provo still have theirs or did they get Yeah, it's in their master plan.

It's in their master plan. Okay. And uh what would the what would the load be on the on say 800 West? Did you estimate that in the traffic study? They usually do it by um peak hour. Um the average daily traffic usually isn't shown, but um I can look through here and see if they quote it be because Yeah. I Yeah. I I want to think about livability and not just uh utility. Sure.

And I guess Yeah. So what? Yeah, it is in the study. It did say on their one of the diagrams it shows the amm.

Yeah, it shows amm. So what they have is figure 6 um 2032. So they're assuming 5 years into the future everything was it 5 years 7 years um by 2032 everything will be built and filled up. Um and so what they have is about You have to do the math here. Uh 2060, they're showing about 1,200 trips a day. Okay, 1,200 trips a day. And how does that compare to typical Oram residential streets?

Everything's different, but it's small. I mean, it's on compared to Okay. I mean, we typically don't count residential streets unless there's like a speeding complaint. You know, we're counting 12 south, fourth south, four northwest, fourth east. I mean, we're always looking at larger roads. When when we count a neighborhood, it's usually um you know, someone's speeding on my road. How many people are going down? Um we could compare to other ones. We have like 500 um east 500 what? 500 east by the mall. We did some traffic calming and things there. So we have counts. Um but okay there's not a standard that we have that says that's too much. Okay.

I mean eventually the level of service grade becomes an F but by that time you're talking signals turn pockets you know a lot more infrastructure roundabouts stuff like that but we're nowhere near that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I was just going to I have a our subdivision that that I live in had it's called the farms. They they took an orchard out, built there's 66 lots. They've built 60 with about 50 accessory apartments in there. So about three cars per household, two home, you know, two families for the majority of them. Um three in ands and outs of that development. We really did not see any flow restrictions for neighborhoods.

You said about 66 and 44 about 100. Well, there's 66 lots. 60 are developed and about 50 of them have accessory apartments. So that's about 110. So if you applied the ORM trip generation, that's, you know, 10 to 14 trips a day times 100, that's 1,400 in a day. So

and like I said, our our neighborhood streets didn't really see any significant um congestion or you know, dangerous traffic or anything like that. So and obviously we're not on 2000 South, but we're between Main Street and Fourth and Fourth and Eth. So, but yeah, like I said, that that impact didn't really impact us. Um, if that's fair,

and you can see um, Commissioner Hawkins that on this plan, we actually asked the the applicant to in include I think that's 1800 South, a stub over to the west, and there's a stub to the north. Part of that's not just traffic circulation. If you if you think about fast forward 10 years and everyone is in there and maybe some people have moved and you want to go to your neighbor's house and you're like, I got to go all the way out to go drop a food off to my neighbor. So, we like the interconnectivity for neighborhood feel. We also have that Cherry Hill stub to the north that may or may not ever happen, but in case we have that there and it's also a utility utility corridor. We we almost need that east west 18 south to bring services to that part.

Believe it or not, that was part of when we approved the autism academy extension. The farm there's so many names here. I apologize. The farm haven, that was actually part of the discussion because there was going to be a gap between that small community and Payton's Crossing to the south. And if if you want your kid to run to a neighbor on a bike and you well you got to go out to Geneva and around it's it's a little bit nerve-wracking. So there's a little bit of community there. But

yeah and and I get the interconnectivity. I one of my questions I'm still coming back to is the not connecting it to Geneva. And I know connectivity has been in the past a goal of ORM. It's one of our stated goals. does not connecting that to Geneva kind of effect because I know there are other places we've talked about road having to put roads through and connect that have less impact than what putting 44 homes into a new neighborhood is going to be let alone the connection to whitest stone and whatever

it would absolutely relieve some traffic some amount you know is it two or 300 a day 400 a day kind of depends on the day but a direct shot right now it's really and I think there's gate. Um, but instead of turning and going to the signal and heading up north, um, eventually a road connection would definitely make the other roads less. It would take volumes from the other other streets. Again, UD do have to approve it. They'd have to go back and get an encorement permit and go through that UD do process. Are you saying they would have to do that now even because we have there is a road on um UD do currently on KK in the thing for this division?

So if UD do hasn't approved it that way then they would have to go in because UD do is really about the the use if you change the use they have a right to readress access and this would change the use of a field. So you do would have a right to say what that road right now it's a on the the application it's a driveway not a road I don't believe it's more of a driveway so that's different than an actual road. Yeah.

Um and if it's actually a public road that would be ours. We would actually have to be the applicant. Um if it's a private if it's a public street the city then would have to apply that we want the street there.

Okay. cuz I mean looking at KK it looks like it already is a public road that's been approved to go along next to next to the autism academy. So if yeah it says public street on that slide. So the other thing I think might be worth addressing here briefly is Geneva Road and the future of Geneva Road. I've heard a lot of it, but I for the new planning commissioners, Geneva will change the nature of as Lake View comes in, it will move. So, could you talk about kind of the future of Geneva?

Um, I think UD do would like to eventually take Lake View once it's built all the way around over to I-15, past the airport. Um, and Gary might even know more about this working in both communities. Geneva Road has a lot of flaws. no, you know, shoulders, no curb and gut or no improvements. So, Provo would like it to be improved before they took it on. And I'm kind of speaking for them through conversations. So, Provo would have to negotiate in their section of town what UDOT would be required to build so that they would accept it and do a trade. But there is talks, nothing, you know, written out yet, no agreements written, but there is talk about that Geneva being a city road, Provo Orum eventually

and it will be stubbed. It won't connect continuously. That was my understanding. Right. Because they'll pull off to Lake View and then the bottom part will stay. Yeah. Just south of the new temple. They will bend west and and tee into Lake View. that's or the land's already purchased and designed and stuff like that. So, yep. So, that's another thing to keep in mind that Geneva is not going to be the same road in 5 years or how whatever they build it. You know,

they're just negotiating. You know, if someone's going to hand you something and you got to fix it, it's like, why would I want it, right? I mean, whatever it is. Um, is the asphalt good? Is the pavement good? Um if if Lake View isn't built in the next five or six years, then there's still the heavy trucks and the cars. So um part of it's tied to the completion of Lake View. Thank you. Yes.

So it it just seems that adding a road to Geneva, yes, it would be be less traffic on the roads, but it doesn't seem to solve much of a problem. I think in some ways it introduces another problem and having to turn left off of Geneva, especially as that gets to be wider and busier into that development. I just don't know that we're really solving anything by asking that we have access from Geneva. And it could be a road or it could be a driveway that's less ciruitous. Um, you know, if you look at this plan, it does zig and zag a little bit. Um, it doesn't have to be a public street, but it could be a less ciruitous route as a driveway and that we wouldn't be um on the hook for the permit.

That's I mean that's a lot of good information. Yeah. I want to ask Britain, do you have anything you want to ask? We have a planning commissioner member on Zoom. No, I'm all set. Everyone's asking the questions that I had. Excellent. Okay. Any other questions for John at this point? Thank you. Pardon?

Um, this is just a curiosity question because we have several items. Are anyone Is anyone here for this item? Would anyone like to speak? Because we've had the public hearing, but if the planning commission's okay, we can reopen for public comment. Okay. Then I will go ahead at this point and reopen for public comment. If you could come to the mic, state your name, and limit your comments to 3 minutes, we'd appreciate that. Thank you.

My name is Pamela Moose, and I live on 800 West right there in Payton's Crossing. And so, as this conversation has evolved from the last time we met, I am still now starting to wonder because Geneva Road is going to be stopped, it will not be busy in front of the the Autism Academy like it is now. So I don't understand why this new neighborhood will get preferential treatment to not have a access road to it but have it go in front of on 800 North. So just kind of an open-ended question and and that's if my understanding is correct that the Geneva Road that will not be busy in 5 years when that construction is done. So, it wouldn't be a big deal to be turning left there anymore than it is already to turn left on 2000. So, is there preferential treatment? I understand at the autism um but fair housing laws mean not only autism people will likely be living there and in the future. So, is it really a fair fairness to say this neighborhood has to have access to the to a major road? This neighborhood has to have access to a major road, but this neighborhood doesn't. Just more thoughts, not a solution. Just Okay. Thank you. Thank you. My name my name is Sher Fong and I agree with Pamela. It seems to me that they are asking Payton's Crossing to take all the responsibility, all the risk, while the autism development, which will be open to anyone, not just autism, will have no risk involved um by the school. And like she said, once Liew goes through,

that's going to be free reign. I mean, hardly any car is there. So only the autism school and the development behind it would be using it. And so it would free up us, keep the kids on our street safer. But once they have their 44 and Keystone or Whit Stone, whatever they're going by now, has their 50some, it's it's just unthinkable of the traffic. and for the kids on our street. When we bought our house, there were two houses where the gas station is and farmland all around. That's why we bought here, Oram, the family city. And now Southwest Orum is being treated as the dumping ground. Put anything you want there. We don't care. And I know from your comments, you care. So, please remember that we bought this to be out of the congestion, out of the traffic, and secure and safe, and this little neighborhood needs to be protected by you as much as possible. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for your time. Uh, my name's Ryan McDougall. I live on 800 um as well um just a few homes down from the stub where it ends. Um and I want to begin by saying um I obviously, you know, would prefer nothing to go in there, but I'm not anti-development. I'm not anti- progress. I know that, you know, that's was stubbed there for a reason. And and um I understand, you know, why I I I believe in property rights. I think people should be able to develop their ground and I I say let's do it. Let's build. The the concerns that I have are um with how this proposal is designed and the impacts it will create. So, the proposal introduces an inverted density pattern, placing the highest density housing at the furthest point from arterial access and directly behind an existing low density neighborhood that runs counter to standard planning principles. Higher density uses should be located closer to arterial, excuse me, or collector roads where infrastructure is designed to handle increased traffic, not routed through local residential streets. When this neighborhood was originally approved, it was designed as a lowdensity residential area. Its streets were not intended to function as a primary access for higher density developments behind it. The proposal fundamentally changes that function without the infrastructure to support it. As designed, this project forces most of its traffic. Well, for the for this proposal, it'd be probably 100% of its traffic. And then for the Wilkerson Farm, probably another 60% of that traffic. Just living in the area, I can just tell you the shortest distance between most of the homes in Wilkerson Farm and 2000 South coming from University Parkway down Geneva or from Provo Center Street down to to Geneva to us is going to be right through 800. Um

there will be a few cars that'll probably be make more sense to drive down towards the tracks, turn a left there if you live along the tracks. Um but most of this burden is going to be placed on our street. Um and so I believe that um it's going to compromise the safety and the design of the street. Um I also understand that that there is a traffic study and that the level of service has been rated as C. However, has been pointed out, uh, level of service measures vehicle delay. It doesn't evaluate whether a local residential street is appropriate to carry that level of traffic, nor does it account for pedestrian safety, neighborhood impacts, or how the street will function in real world conditions. And I believe, you know, I believe that people are trying to get it right as far as the traffic, but I think it might be a little bit underestimated how much traffic is actually going to be forced onto us. If you really look at how many how the the shortest route between us or our 2000 South and a lot of those homes, it's going to be right through us. And I don't think it's fair to put all that burden on us. So, I would ask that you there's there's a lot of ways to to do this to design it better. I don't I don't think we should not put anything there. I'm prodevelopment. Let's develop it, but let's look at this better. Let's let's take another crack at it and see if we can design it better because I don't think it's good the way it is. Thank you. Okay. Would anyone else like to come forward?

Just ask a question quickly. Is there a reason the mic? Yeah. I'm sorry. Sorry, I was out of town last week when you had the or two weeks ago. Is there a reason that that breakaway gate is blocking it off? Instead of going through Geneva, is there a good reason Geneva is not being used? That's I still have not picked up on why it's not being used. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I will if no one else wants to speak, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and then we'll come back to the planning commission for questions. Um to address yours, we did talk about it last time. It's an emergency access only. That's what the breakaway is that between the parking lot and the new development and the connection into there. My question is why can't it be connection? That's kind of overall what we're discussing right now. Yeah. So, and then

Oh, no. Okay. Or from public comments. Were there anything Okay. Would the applicant like to address anything that was said? Giving you a chance. Okay. All right. So, now it's kind of discussion time for us. Jared, do you have something you want to say? Um, no, not necessarily. I just I think those are those are good comments. It's it's um Yeah, those are those are good comments.

Um and John's John's explanations I hope make sense. If if anybody has questions, we're happy to answer them um or take any other any other any other questions. Just to follow up on one of the comments, you talked about density and that it's true with design with planning principles. What is kind of your take on density being behind higher density being behind the lower density?

Yeah, that's that's a great that's a great question. So, um the lower density here, the point being this is lower density and and higher density back here with the twin homes. And usually I I gather that the um the typical what what the comment was addressing was that typically you'd see these kinds of units the reverse buffering 2000 South to the lower density residential or or buffering lower density here to Geneva or something like that. Um, some of that is just a function of when these things all happened. When when that die was kind of cast, when Payton Crossing was developed and and these folks have applied for for this PRD density when this uh Farm Haven was approved, it's also a higher density than than this was already here. Uh, at that time though, you have this OS5 zone that's being asked for reszoning right now, buffering in between. So, um, not sure that it was an issue that was really raised when when this was initially reszoned to PRD, but it's a point worth making. This is this is an existing approved PRD. Um, so I I I can't really address the cottages, although they are single family, detached, and it's going to the twin homes. It's a larger density. It's a good point. Usually, we'd like to see that in reverse. It's not the die that was cast here because of the developments already happened, but it's something to consider. Yes.

So, if this doesn't get approved, what's there could be built and 800 South is still or East is still in in play, right? Um, yes and no. So, right now, this is what's approved right now, and it does not include these these look like lots, but they don't exist. Okay. This is Payton Crossing here, and this is the existing stub that you see. this wouldn't exist yet. So, this would all be built if they went forward with their existing approved PR. They could build all of this and they're would have to go to Geneva. They would they take a public road out to Geneva and they would get this public road that goes up and connects into Whit Stone that was just approved.

But this wouldn't exist because if this doesn't get reszoned, then it it doesn't necessarily happen or I I'm not clear on whether this site plan dictates that road going across that OS5 zone. I'm not clear on that, but these these lots have been in theory approved. And that development could be built, but it would go out mainly to Geneva. Yes. Do you have a question? Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Do I have a question? Let's start with that question. Um, yeah. So, I don't know. Just like um I just curious what the consequences are. What what if we said we would like to see in addition to that 8th west road that there was also an effort to be made to look at a a road out to Geneva. Yeah. What are the consequences of that of us requiring? Uh

that's a that's a great question, too. And I think that's a conversation that you would want to have with the applicants. If if that's in terms of the planning commission's actions tonight, if that's something you're interested in doing, then you would um you would potentially I I think you should talk to applicants about it, but you could potentially table the item again and say, "We'd like to see you redesign it if you want to be recommended for reszone with a road out to Geneva." But that would require uh not just a condition going forward to council because this is significantly that would be significantly different here. We'd have to see how that worked and that would require some time and effort on their part and they could come back and see you about that. Again, that's why you'd want to talk to them about that. See if that's something they're interested in doing or if they if if you're not going to recommend for it without that, then your other option would be to recommend uh or make a motion to recommend denial.

Thank you. And they can and they can take that forward or they take our negative recommendation to city council and then city council can decide. Absolutely. So or you can ask them if they're interested in in coming back with a different kind of proposal instead of a negative negative recommendation. But all requires those are kind of your two paths in that regard. Does that make sense?

Yeah. So options table and see if the applicant will reconsider or either approve or deny make a positive or negative approval of this. That sounds reversed, but you get what I'm saying, right? So, okay. Yeah. But yeah, do you wanna you can come up if you can just toggle between the two. Um it's important to note that there was if you see here in this plan, the adult autism center, which is considered phase 2, um which is kind of in the backyard of our current facility, is just being finished up now. the construction on that building right there. And it's different than this map. It extends further. So this road would not be able to exist the way that it's written here because the building, if you'll move to the other plan, maybe it shows doesn't. You see that the building was remapped and it extends further to the south. So that would entirely change this. And we were also told that regardless that piece of property that wasn't ours, that was part of Wilkerson Farm and Al Switzler's property that was below there that we would have to stub to that and that they would require an easement to get through to 800 West regardless of whether we had a Geneva Road or not. We couldn't close that off there. Yeah. So that that property there would still have that road down 800 West as well, even if this road to Geneva existed, which was what our understanding was as well. So that wouldn't necessarily mitigate or cut off the traffic to their neighborhood as well. So because we've gone through as as you can imagine things have been tabled and changed and all of the things over the years and we're so anxious to get this development going for our community. Um, but it it as well as understanding the neighbors, but that that mitigating road, as you'll see in this plan that was approved, was a road that we had to get an easement agreement from my understanding from Al Switzler for the road to go through onto

800 West regardless of whether it went out to Cha Road. Does that make sense? I have one question for maybe Jared. So under this plan, this is are is this similar to R8 in the kinds of structures that are in the previous plan? Um, sort of. It's smaller smaller lots and smaller setbacks than R8 though. Yeah. But are they are they are accessory apartments available to these structures? I I'm sorry. I don't know if that was anticipated in the PRD zone. That's if Farm Haven allows for that or not. If it doesn't specifically not allow for it, then it would probably be possible.

So, you could have actually twice as many families in this area with this plan. I thought PRDs were limited. I thought you would Yeah, there's no and and they're limited to one story above grade and there

because that that would, you know, obviously change the amount of flow in there. We also indicated on the in our what we're proposing for the HOA regulations for the unit two cars per home. I think that's all. Any other questions for me? Any other questions? We'll let you know we have more. So yeah, I think this subdivision is a great idea and I think all of us are very supportive of that. We're just trying to find the balance. Um because I do feel like um with a little reimagining the storm drain detention basin and where that could go, be it up on the north end or over onto there's got to be a way that we can put a road through to Geneva that will keep everybody happy. Um that enables this. Um or maybe the parking for your facility shifts. I I I don't know. I don't know the ins and outs. Um it's it's a great thing and I'd love to see it happen because I think it supports a community that needs support. Absolutely. But I think we all need support, right? And so it's trying to find that. It's a little tricky. And I would agree with that that I the original proposal again because I think I'm the only person who was here when that happened. So sorry I keep bling out on my own. But the original proposal I really really liked. There was reasons we were for it. Um the cottage homes, the smaller community, the fact that it was going to be its own little, you know, its own little area. I mean eventually it might connect, but there was a lot I really liked. Am I I There's things I like about the Twin Homes. There things I'm less

thrilled about, but I think it works. I think it's a good use of the land. It It gives a lot of opportunities. The road for me is still a concern. Um cuz we've approved a road there before and now we're saying they don't have to have it. And I can understand from their perspective why they don't want it. I can also understand from a community perspective why having another set another area to come in and out of makes sense. I've lived in a town home community of 100 plus town homes. Literally one exit for the entire thing. And yes, did we ever I mean, was it ever really a horrible backup? No. But it was always a concern and always an issue that everyone was being funneled through one thing. And then we weren't even being funneled into another neighborhood. We were at least being funneled into a road at the time was a stub and is not anymore. Um, so that's where I'm kind of I kind of struggle with this is is that is that road but open. And Britain, if you want to say anything, just let me know. Just say my name and I'll get you in. So if there's any other comments, any other just, you know, again, I keep going back to um all I empathize with anybody who doesn't have any traffic right now. I just don't know that there's any data to support our concerns about needing an access to Geneva. The study doesn't suggest that and our expert here doesn't suggest that that's going to make a substantive difference. And I think there's and but I think there's a level of concern too to livability for the people. the people who are going to live there now are not here to be able to say what is their life going to be like being funneled through the other two neighborhoods every single time they have to leave too and I mean yes we only have the voice of those at Payton's Crossing but

you know if if you live in a community like that there's that aspect too data tells us a lot it doesn't always answer all of the aspects Maline. Yes, Britain. Yeah, just to to be more involved, I agree with your sentiments completely. I think what other people have said, I think this this project is really easy to get behind. Um, but I think I agree with you. I think that there are emotional logistical concerns that need to be addressed.

Okay. Thank you. So that kind of leads us at a place the question is motion that but that would be next unless there's more conversations people want to have. Um just a point of clarification for us. We're an advisory body on this. We're not so we're making a recommendation to the city council who then make a final decision. Right. Yes.

Okay. So and again our options are we table it again and discuss this further. We recommend approval with it the way that it is right now. We can recommend approval with the condition that they add a road to Geneva or we can just say no we don't like this at all and do a negative. Am I missing a permutation of what we're disc what we've discussed in our conversation? So, one question. So, say we were were to recommend it could go to the city council and they could add additional stipulations. Absolutely. Have to come back to us or or

if it's significant enough change. That's kind of what we're talking about. I think Gary brought it up about the road that if it's significant or no, Jared did that if it's significant enough it might have to come back to us depending on what the change is. I would say if it's if it's something like the road that's likely that the the council could go forward without reconsulting you but I think they wouldn't. I think they would send it back to you. That's my opinion.

So, and again, yes, we're recommending we can make it and again this is purely hypothetical. We're all trying to learn here. We can make a negative recommendation to the city council. They can choose to continue to forward it to city council and city council can make whatever decision they make. Our our job is to vet it, to give our opinion, and then to pass it on to city council who makes the decision. It's going to be brave. It's going to be brave. I'll give it a whirl as long as Gary will step in again and help me get the verbiage right. I move that the ORM city planning commission, I believe the word I want to use is forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for uh the request to amend article 225-3A and the zoning map of ORM city of ORM by changing the zone of the property located generally at 1875 South Geneva Road from OS5 open space to PRD planned residential development approximately 2.9 acres and to amend appendix KK site plan farm haven of the ORM city code with the stipulation that a road to Geneva uh and a public what's the word I want to put here a public road to Geneva will be put in the plant I don't know what the verbiage is that close enough Gary

yes but that that subject to the condition that there's a public road that connects to Geneva Road. Okay. Okay. So, we're clear on what the motion is. Do I have a second? Second.

Okay. Um, this is where I'm going to be like, what are your names? Susan moved and Micah seconded that we forward a positive recommendation to city council with the condition that a road be connecting between Geneva Road and the development. You can speak to that if we want to speak anymore. We're good. Okay. Do you have a question or you just waiting to vote? Okay. Okay. We're good. We're going to go to vote now. So I vote to forward without stipulation. So how would I You vote no. You say nay. Nay. Nay.

I I I I Britain I Okay, that's 542 against. So that we will forward that recommendation to city council on this aer. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will move on to item 5.2, which is a public hearing for 355 West University reszone request to amend article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the city of ORM by changing the zone of the property located generally at 355 West University Parkway from R8 single family residential to C2 commercial, approximately 5.93 acres. Thank you. Um, as a reminder, just uh because we just had the discussion again, this is an item change of zoning, so that you're you're recommending body in this case. So, um, if you take action, that action would either be to table it or to recommend approval or denial, um, as the case may be. So, as Maline just said, uh, this is 355 West Park, uh, University Parkway University Parkway out here. This is, um, the old water conservancy district office. It's been currently, it's been the Greenix office for a while. Um, this office building here, the applicants are applying to change the zoning to C. It says C1 there. I'm sorry, that's a misprint. C2 commercial is the request. Um, and it is currently a non-resident. It's currently in the R8 zone, but it's not being used residentially. It hasn't been uh historically. Let me just show you here. This is the general plans land use map, and this is the property again highlighted here, the subject property, the 5.93 acres. This RC is the regional commercial land use category. U you have some highdensity residential category and lowdensity residential right behind it on both sides of the parkway uh properties. I can't seem to turn that off. I apologize. Um the zoning currently, as I said, is R8 single family residential. It's not in use residentially, but the R8 zoning to the south of it is all developed. These are single family homes. You do have some apartments condos here uh in this highway services zone.

And then the PD5 zone is a commercial zone. It's a specialty plan development uh zone. Has more limited uh lists of uses um that are associated with it than the C2 zone that the applicants have asked for. The uh concept plan was submitted accompanying the request for the 5.93 acres. They would keep the existing office building uh make some additional parking um some changes there in this area and add three more buildings about 12,200 additional square ft in this um in this concept. Uh they're hoping they bring in some restaurants and other retailers to that area. They feel like the visibility on University Parkway is really good and that's why they would they're showing this plan with them all kind of congregated up in that area. Um, as a reminder, this is a concept plan, but it's not the same thing as a concept plan. For example, in the Farm Haven site plan is associated with a specialty kind of a zone, the PRD zone, which is kind of like the PD zones in a way. This site plan would not be binding upon them. It's what they've suggested, what they would do as a concept. But an answer to that that question that has come up as this has been in the works, uh, this would not be binding. It's an example. The C2 zoning if granted allows different site plans. With that said, any site plan that gets that gets proposed does have to come to you as a planning commission for approval. So, you just you do still have um some measure of of control and review, but you're reviewing on the standards of the C2 zone. Um it's not as it's not as detailed. Um the zoning that's in place currently to answer the question that was asked this PD5 zone um the PD zones that plan development zoning does require site plans that are associated with that zone itself. So every project that comes in gets bound by a site plan uh that's approved as part of the zoning. Not so the case with

the C2. It's just a a zone that allows whatever the C2 zone allows. I hope I haven't confused that more than I intended to. So that's the concept that they proposed. Uh they have asked for the C2 zone and these are the elevations that they're hoping to to do the the buildings there. Those those out building pads at least one of them would had a would have a drive-thru for a restaurant tour. Um and that's what we have. Do you have any questions for staff on that uh result? Just really quick. Sure. The proposed place for the buildings is currently where the garden is. Yes. Yeah. Just being clear about that. So the parking lot really They'll have some changes. Some changes, but but all still significantly

in the Yeah. In the concept they're proposing, all of this would still be parking. There' just be additional parking added to it. And in this area, you'd have the the new buildings and some parking associated as well. Yes, Darren. Yeah. Darren, sorry. Uh, so um, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District still stays there. It It's not there now. Yeah. It's not there. No, pest control is there. Ah, just it's easier to say that and explain why this all exists. This exists for the benefit of pest control. They're not growing moths and things out here. Um, it was always confusing to me when I first came and started seeing that. It used to be the conservancy district. It was a demonstration garden, right?

And it's just still there. But Green has long since taken over the building. Oh, okay. I had no idea. Sorry. The conservy's in North Orum. Okay. Yeah, I had no idea. Thank you. Um and uh you said uh so what does the C2 allow? More or less C2 zoning allows it's our most permissive of the commercial zones. So um retail uh some wholesale. It's it's primarily organized toward retail functions, restaurants, banks, offices, um car sales, the the the things that usually get limited from it. when you go to other zones like the C1 or most of the PD zones that get approved, it limits car sales, gas stations, and things like that, but the C2 zone would allow those things.

So, is there anything is there anything the C2 does not allow? Nuclear facilities. No, I'm joking. There's there's more there's other things that it doesn't allow, but um not much. If if it's retail and you can and you can do it, the C2 probably allows it. It's our it's our retail zone that would allow, for example, um amusements and recreation and things like that. uh and specifically car sales and and uh rentals and um and repair that kind of thing. I used I used to have a great packet that shows it visually, but I'm trying to find it. You do have one one question on Sure. Can you go back to the site plan again? Yes.

Yeah. Not the elevation, but the Yeah, that so that street is going to be in the same place the previous one. What? Yes. Or the driveway, I guess, or whatever you would call that. That would stay the same in Wisconsin. Does that on 400 West there with the street comes out of Christy Cream because they're offset. They don't they don't match up. Um, does that cause any traffic problems or because they're offset enough, it doesn't That's a good question. That particular point hasn't been truly evaluated yet for the zone change. Again, probably for the reason that we we're not really approving a site plan in this case. who were approving a a

a resoning that could include a site plan likeness and this is what they intend to do and they would still have to if if it were reszoned if the planning commission recommended for it and the city council reszoneed it then they would come in and ask for a formal site plan review and we would evaluate all of that. It's been evaluated at least in a cursory way and hasn't generated anything that's a concern about that location yet. Thanks. You bet. Jared, could you um confirm so PD5 goes to the east for how long and how much C2 is in that general area of the parkway? That's a great question and I apologize. I was going to do that in the interim and I didn't have a chance to do. Okay.

Um and there's not a short way to get to a good zoning map. All right. Uh it does. What's your gut tell you? The PD goes up a ways another block or so on both sides. C2 takes over from there and then it goes to another kind of PD zone as you get closer to station the mall. Okay. So is there more PD5 than C2 on that? No, I don't believe so. Okay. I don't believe so.

No, I was Oh, can I just follow up on something and then Yeah. No, I I did find it. It was behind another piece of paper, but it really this C2 is basically if you go down here, I mean, this is pages of stuff that can be in there. I mean, it's restaurants and public amusements like Jared said and auto malls and all sorts of services, funeral homes. There's a lot. I mean, it's if you can think probably is in the C2. It's probably more limited in the C3 maybe and a lot less in the C1. That's basically how thinking through. But it if you want to look, you're welcome to look. Yeah, Susan was going too. And then

I was just going to uh mention that I think the C2 is super general category and it concerns me a little bit with it being adjacent to R8 established homes. From the comments I read about the neighborhood, there weren't wasn't a huge turnout in terms of neighborhood neighbors commenting, but there were neighbors who expressed some concerns over a variety of things. I just think a C2 designation is pretty broad. I like the PD5 or something that they need to present what they're going to do there so that we don't end up being surprised with what goes there. That's kind of my thought, but I'm open to what it um Yeah.

And and and I guess my question is along those lines. Why why does why has the city zoned much of this or some of this PD5 and other ones C2? What's the why do we sometimes do that?

So, the the short answer to that question is that we we don't actively seek out reszonings as a city. We respond to applications for them. That's just the reality. In in 95 99% of the cases, the city doesn't actively attempt to reszone properties. We let people come to us and that's what that that's what that's for. It's supposed to help guide us as to saying whether this works or not. That's the first step. There's all sorts of other things to consider, but we don't actively reszone. So, as people have come in, at some point, somebody came in and asked for this planned development zone and said, "Well, we'll limit ourselves to these kinds of uses." And that lined up with our thinking as a city of what was best for University Parkway. And so, the PD5 was was created.

So, we would have the option of recommending that the applicant come back to us with more of a PD5 proposal instead of a C2 proposal. Sure, that's a conversation you could have and they they could come back and they could come back with a request to reszone to PD5 to PD5 to be included in that zoning as well. It's available. It just needs to be amended to include them. Um, we could we could consider that if that's something that works. Okay.

And could we recommend to move to the city council with a stipulation that it gets moved to a PD5? um because of notice requirements because it was noticed as a C2 here. I I I wouldn't recommend that. I think it would we want to reschedule a hearing here as C2 or sorry as PD5 if that were the recommendation. It's something you should ask the applicants as well if they're if they in the same vein as the last application. if they want to if the thinking of the commission is that it's acceptable as a PD5 but not as a C2 then you could ask them if they want to come back with a PD5 or if they would rather take a negative recommendation for a C2 if that's the thinking of the commission I don't have a good handle on that yet I'm watching very closely so

so there's kind of two things we do need to give the applicant if they're here an opportunity to speak we haven't done that as we've dived in dove into our conversation and then the other side is I think it's kind of hard the why PD ED, why not C2? Why not? This goes to a lot of what we've talked about over the last year and looking at the general plan and looking at some other things that right now I think and I'm going to just say it from my perspective, a lot of the use of the PDS is a reflection of the fact that there's a desire for limitation on different types of retail more than having more than three options. That's either everything almost everything and slightly less than everything and so and the certainty we want the certainty as part of development and that PDS give that but it's also created a really bloated city code because every one of these developments have their own code they have their own design standards they have their own what's allowed and what's not. We've talked about development agreements. That's another way to limit. But development agreements have their limitations as well. They're not well recorded. They're hard to, you know, in 10 years, no one's going to think to look for that. And the gas station could still go on the property cuz that's always that's always what everyone will bring up as the worst case scenario is that the gas station goes there. And there was already a gas station proposed on this property at some point in the past, too. So, just some things to keep in mind. Jared, would you like to

just as a reminder, it is a we the public hearing part, right? Well, I'm going to get to the applicant first, right? One of the three people sitting here, I know who one of them is. So, the other two is the applicant here. Just a sec. Okay. Erin, do you want to say something before the applicant speaks? I I just wanted to answer a question. I I looked up on the zoning map how far the PD5 zone goes. It goes on 400 West on both sides of Parkway. From there all the way up to about 200 East.

Thank you. The applicant, you come forward, please. Thank you. Uh, thanks for having me. My name is McKenna Christensen. I'm the applicant with Cole West. Um, we are the property owner. Just a couple questions I wanted to answer from our perspective, specifically relating to why we applied for the C2 rather than the PD5. Um, so in our experience, we typically uh apply for plan development zones when there's certain exceptions that we're wanting to ask for that we can't get in a C2C, C1, C3 zone, whether that's setbacks, building heights, design materials that we're required to use. So then we can compromise on uses, but give on setbacks. In this scenario, we did feel we could meet all of the requirements of the C2 zone without having to ask for any um variances. So, we thought that would be the cleanest path forward. Um, that being said, I did host a neighborhood meeting. I got to speak to a lot of the neighbors that do um share property lines with our property. Um, we understand the concerns. We understand that under the C2, if you um kind of blanket grant that to us that we could come back with a site plan that is a surprise and is a little different than what we're showing. Um, a lot of the concerns that were brought up by the neighbors, I do think they're reasonable. I do think they can be worked around. I did include those in the meeting minutes that I submitted with the application. Um I would be hesitant to move forward under a PD5 application just speaking to some of the retailers and the tenants. They generally want to make sure that the zones in place before they start spending money with engineers to get their site plan going. Um you did mention development agreements and we actually do love development agreements as developers. Um we do record them. I don't know how ORM does them, but we do record them against our property. It does transfer with title of the land. So, if there's specific uses, I know a gas station's been mentioned, auto shop has been mentioned. We do not have any

intent of developing any of those. And if you would be open to a development agreement and letting us move forward under the C2 zone with some stipulations, but not making us necessarily design the whole concept plan up front. Um, that's definitely something we would be open to. Thank you. Oh, yes.

Just last week we um approved something before the council by the development agreement. So I I think we've already established that we believe that those are enforceable and they're recorded and I'm assuming that you couldn't get that that the city is going to pay attention I guess will they in 10 years pay attention to this agreement that might say no gas station, no amusement park or whatever that is. Yes, we record we record development agreements. They'll be recorded at the county

uh internally. Uh we try to keep track of them. We have uh maps and and layers and different things that have all the information. The more information we have to look up, the harder it is. And to prevent a mistake, you know, the simplest thing is ju just one commercial zone and then everybody on staff knows what it is. Then you have two commercial zones and setbacks and heights and things are different. But we do do development agreements. We do record them and we do keep track of them. It's the only hesitation is as things get more complicated, it's easier for a staff person to make a mistake. question for the applicant. I'm sorry.

Oh, no. I was gonna say I wasn't trying to imply that we don't have them. I'm just trying to lay out because again, we're all pretty new, the pros and cons of how they work. So, yeah, you can go ahead. So, tell me why applying for a PD5 would be a burden to call West.

Right now, I think it's getting us into a position where we can really start to create a vision for the site. Um, and for the tenants, depending on what tenants and what retailers come to the site, the site could completely change whether they need a drive-thru, whether depending how much parking they need, if they need a patio. And in our experience talking to some of the tenants, we've had a lot of interest from restaurants and then a lot of like dental and medical users, um, kind of like dentists, veterinarians, stuff like that. Um, but we haven't been able to get to really a point of leasing and finalizing a deal with them until we have zoning in place because that's a really big contingency for them.

But if you had a PD5 zone, how would that influence their decision as to Well, if we had the PD5 zone, we'd need to lock our site plan down before the zoning is in place. So, that would kind of limit our flexibility of what tenants we could bring in. Okay. So, and then I would imagine it would probably be a zone amendment if we had to change the site plan at all, which is But you wouldn't be afraid of having an agreement that would exclude the things that the neighbors are scared of.

Yeah. Yeah. And and we took notes of that. You know, um lighting was a big one. Um there are some trees on the south side of the property that they really hope we can keep, which I think would be great as long as we can evaluate that. um they're not damaged or it wouldn't be a huge um issue to keep them. Um I know car washes, like car sales, auto uses, we'd be fine restricting items like that, but we we would rather go that route than just completely lock in our site plan from day one and have to do a whole zone amendment if we have a tenant that comes in and they want a patio or they need a different design elevation or something. So, I we're flexible. We hear the neighbors. We want to work with them. Um, but we'd also like some flexibility on our end, too.

And this comment might be more for Jared than for you, but what are the limitations of the PG zone? We don't I mean, we'd have to look at the code to find out what was even allowed in the first place, what the design limitations were, etc.

Um, I I I don't know the specific design limitations, but I think um, McKenna's point is is is the same either way. it it's not necessarily about specific design limitations of the PD5 because I don't think there are a lot. It's a fairly short zone, but um they're they're in a they're not in a place right now where they have tenants locked in. So they whatever the design limitations are wouldn't matter necessarily because they want to be able to be flexible in the overall site planning. So the devel but to the point of the development agreement, some of our development agreements also include um concept plans laid down. We could have an overall concept plan and have to try to write around that or work work through that issue too. Or it would just we have a de a development agreement that laid out big issues like trying to keep the trees on the south, keeping u the the development of buildings toward university parkway as opposed to the other direction to the south and limiting the uses. That would be probably the the limits of the development agreement. I was going to say, well, PD52, is it wide open on what can be developed there too or?

No, it it's got limit uses, but it also requires because it's a PD zone, it requires that lock site plan. Uh, any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, this is a public hearing, so we will go ahead and open the um public hearing at this point if anyone wants to come forward and we'll close the public hearing because there's virtually nobody here. This happens more than I would I I would like it. I'd like to hear from the public, too. So, we invite the public to come to our meetings and speak when they can. So, With that, we can go to discussion with the planning commission. Uh Jeff, sorry I keep talking. Um next door is a car lot and I'd be curious if we um have a list of the things from the neighbors that they really object to. Do we know what that is right now other than

Turn your mic. It was garbage uh lighting um like from parking lights. So if you have parking lights, don't put parking lights in there. Like they just wanted to not shine in their backyard or in their kitchen window or whatever. They wanted and they didn't want smells. They didn't want sound. It was kind of those light sounds and smells. They don't want to see it, hear it, or smell it. Yeah. Okay. Is kind of. So, you know, dump but okay with restaurants, okay with I mean come from restaurants, too. They'll be on the far side, right? They're on the according to the the proposal. Yeah.

The idea of what's going in, it'll all be on the road side, not on the south side. There's like 300 ft. Did it say I think was in the notes. It is a long ways. Um Yeah, it's a long ways between the buildings and there would be that much buffer between buildings and the homes and the neighbors. So, it's all parking. Yeah. Just to confirm that's the current design. There's no Yeah, they're not correct. No, from the retailer's perspective, the desirable space, if I have some I want people to see me, I'm going to want them out there. Got it. Micah, did you want to say something?

Hence my attempt to keep them here. I was just going to say that, you know, the lighting issues can be taken care of with I mean, there's there's plenty of different options as far as the exterior lighting to make sure that we don't have, you know, extra light going into neighbors houses. So, that's really not a big concern of mine as long as we control it the way the neighbors want it to be controlled so there's no bleed out or anything like that. Um, I'm, you know, my main thing that I'm looking at is as long as we could strain whatever businesses that are going to be there, you know, on the street side and not on the, you know, not not coming in the area closer to the neighbors. I'm okay with that. It's just coming up with something that's agreeable to everybody.

Thank you. Any other anyone else wanted to jump in at this point? Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. So again, if we do the C2, what is our ability to constrain lights, sounds, and smells later?

Um, it's a good question. So if you change the zoning, this is your legislative function right now, right? you making a recommendation one way or the other to the city council whether that involves a development agreement or not. But eventually this would have to come before they can build a restaurant there or whatever they want to build there, they've got to come back to this body with a site plan application that will be tied down and then once that's approved and that's tied down. What what co west is not prepared to do right now McKenna is tie themselves down to a certain site plan because they're still shopping some users and I was gonna say and lighting plan is part of the site plan. Photometrics are part of site. Absolutely. We will actually see those eventually.

You'd see lighting plans, landscaping plans, elevations, uh the parking counts and everything. We'd analyze all of that. Um, so yeah, you you'd see all of that kind of information in your site planning and you can do things like look at the buffering whether that's appropriate, require greater wall heights if you need it, make sure the lights are hooded and and dealt with in the ways like Mike is talking about. It's easy enough to do as part of the site plan. The harder part is are the uses that that are not uh that would be dealt with with the only way to do that is to either go with something like a PD5 or ask for development agreement as part of it. And you could stipulate some things like locating the buildings closer to University Parkway. I um I I agree. I think that's that's going to happen on its own. The visibility on this site is what's attractive to it, but you can still stipulate that in the development agreement if you want. Yeah.

So Gary, you have a comment. In a situation like this, realistically, it's the uses that you would put into a development agreement. And what you would probably do is put list the uses that would be acceptable and that if they're not in the development agreement, they can't be there. Megan,

I guess my thing that I'd like to see is, you know, your total vision. Give us, you know, cuz there are the there is the worries and the concerns of the residents there. So, if there's any way that you could kind of outline to us what you foresee, what you would like to have in there, then that'll start building the parameters on what we're looking at.

Yeah, absolutely. And I haven't looked um in detail at the C3 zone. Um but we I would be happy to take a look at those uses and see if that would be compatible with the vision we have. It sounds like the C2 is the primary concern. Um, as far as uses, who we have had a lot of interest in and what we would like to see here is in this western building, we would like to see restaurant uses. Um, we do have one drive-thru laid out. Um, we've kind of some fast casual concepts, not necessarily fast food like a McDonald's or a Chick-fil-A that generates a ton of traffic. Um, but we've had some fast fast casual concept interest. And then in this um uh eastern building, we've had interest from a um e- emergency vet user. Um their name is Veg. Um it's an emergency pet ER. Um they don't do boarding or kenneling. They do um have 24-hour operations just if someone's dog get sick gets sick in the middle of the night, but um they don't do boarding or any of that. Um, like I said, we don't have any um interest or plan at this time to do a gas station, a quick loop concept, car sales. We're aware of the previous application that was submitted for a gas station and um we know the history on that, heard a lot about it from the residents. Um, but we would be I think C2 is our ideal just with the flexibility it gives us. Um, but we would be happy to take another look at either the C3 or um restricting some uses via a development agreement in the C2.

Thank you. Any do you have another question for the applicants? I was just going to mention that in looking through that gas stations are allowed in C3 as are restaurants, but in C1 neither of them are allowed. So, it's kind of a if you're trying to split that, there's not a commercial that having one but not the other. Hence my comment. One is everything. One's almost everything and one's not quite everything. It really is where that's a deficiency. Our code, not that's not Yeah. Any other request? Yeah. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Jeff, is this for the applicant or No, just comment. Okay. Thanks. Thanks.

Yeah. Just just a reminder that this may be Once you go see too, whoever owns this property forever more can do whatever they want. So if it may not be the plan now, but 15 years this gets sold, somebody puts something. So the question is how important is it for us to require the agreement that says it cannot be X, Y, and Z. That's my gut that that would kind of meet this give give the flexibility if they desire and also meet the needs of the neighbors who have expressed concerns about what goes there. Yeah, I have a comment too. Yeah.

And maybe more a question for Gary. The effectiveness of us dealing with this at this phase as opposed to a site plan. Is it more effective when when we actually have something before us that we know is going to happen to put a development restriction on it or is it do we need to do it now? Well, the what needs to happen now are if or uses if because if it's C2, everything on the C2 list could come in. And so if there are some uses you know that are not acceptable there regardless today or 20 years from today that in your best guess it wouldn't be appropriate then that would be good to put into a development agreement. Site plan issues you know lighting yeah phototric plan we're going to look at that. Uh, honestly, buildings, you know, I I guess somebody could come in and spend a whole lot of money and put a building in the southeast corner, uh, but they're not going to be in business long. But then you've got a building there. Maker,

I think what would be the easiest is if you could generate a list of the things that you foresee with your experience that has been a positive and that's gone through and that's what the clients that that you're looking for. Give us that and then we can kind of fine-tune what we're looking at with what you know what works with your business plan, but at the same time we can take those and consider what the what the residents want at the same time. I kind of have that balance. Sh. Go ahead. Yeah, the applicant can come forward. That's my job to invite her up. Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Um, so do you think it would be with that recommendation, it would be fine if I request to be tabled tonight, come back hopefully at the next planning commission. I can give you a list of what is currently allowed in the C2, what uses we'd like to keep, and which we would recommend to restrict via development agreement. Then you can see what's allowed and what's not. Yes, that's an option we can consider tonight. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Um I just want to address a couple of other things. Thank you. Are you done? Sorry. I don't want to like change topics here, but it it was something that was mentioned earlier and it's something to keep in mind. Yes, this abuts residential. Yes, we're talking about C2 directly against R8, but there really is almost I can't think of anywhere in the city other than maybe along No, probably not even that much anymore along uh Geneva that we do not have, especially in our main corridors of State Street and University Parkway where there is not direct connection between commercial be it C1, C2 and I'm sorry, C2 C2 and C3 with residential. That's literally how ORM has been built. And so that makes it difficult when somebody wants to change. But you also have to look from part of ORM's job is to have sales tax so we keep our property or you know our property tax low and those sort of things. And so this is part of our main corridor. It's also if you think about the actual land this is a really steep precipice over so the back and it's like you're saying the likelihood of the backside and maybe you could comment on this the likelihood of the backside being developed is low not impossible but

not impossible but very low very low you know so there's kind of those other aspects too that we we care about our residents we do we need to make sure we're protecting ing them as best as we can, but we also have other interests to keep in mind as well. So, Britain, did you want to say anything? If he's still there?

Yeah, I'm still here. Sorry. Um, yeah. No, I I again, everyone is expressing all the same concerns I have. I mean, it's if it's right on university, it makes sense to be, you know, to to be commercial. It's silly that it's not right now, but um yeah, I'm not sure where I feel about the kind of easing it from city to to neighborhood or if it's that hard line that's maintained up to this point I think is pretty reasonable, but the development agreement I think would be fine. So, is that something we would do? We would just forward now or is that something we would table and then establish those development agreement terms?

We could do it either way. We could forward with a recommendation that there is a development agreement or we could table it till next meeting and then we can look at it and then forward it with the agreement with what our recommendation is. So it can be done either way. So just to confirm we could forward that to city council and say you decide what is exempted in the agreement. Yes, we could make a recommendation that they have a development agreement to limit it. They also but they would then stipulate what's in that agreement gives them time gives them two weeks or however long before the council seems to be reasonable and efficient

but the city council could also well either way the city council could approve it without the recommend without the development agreement too. Jared did you want to say something? Oh, no. Just just that they they typically they seem to prefer at the council that you forward if you're going to forward recommendation that it be tied to a development agreement that you've seen that development agreement or you've reviewed it as well. Yeah, I I agree. I think I think if if we table it for now, you come with your you know what your desires would be and then I think there's no reason why we couldn't you know come up with a reasonable you know development agreement at that point that facilitates both sides. I don't think that there's there's an issue. Yeah.

Yeah. I think well I think the applicants in a position where you know their plans depend on who they who the partners decide to sign up with. Right. So, we need to determine, you know, the general broad concerns that the neighborhood has, establish those, and then that can give the applicant something to at least work with with the presentation of her of their partners. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, ask one more question. Yeah, you can ask another question. How do we know what the neighbors are concerned with? Just from that neighborhood meeting. From the neighborhood, there are notes from that meeting. Yes, they were in our packet. Okay. Sorry. I didn't

That wasn't supposed to be accusatory in jumping. You didn't read it. You clearly No. So, yeah, it's in the packet. It's almost always the answer. And if they had And if the neighbors had come to the public hearing, that would have been the other opportunity to hear from them and they aren't that concerned. We occasionally have pop quizzes on the staff reports. Just want you to know. I've heard candy bars are sometimes hidden in them. Just kidding. All right. Can I also say I mean is it evidence that the neighbors maybe aren't as concerned about this because nobody's here that or notices that there's noticing things at are we making up concerns that may not exist?

We've heard staff's heard from several of the neighbors in the interim just making sure that that we knew that they had these concerns etc. So I I don't know that there's not interest in it, but they were they felt like their interests were were addressed by this concept plan, but they may not be completely clear all together as well on how not specifically required this concept plan is that it's just part of that's always a concern when you include concept plans with zone changes. Um so the development agreements, if that's the way you want to limit those uses, Micah's kind of direction is probably a good way to do that. But I think there's like an email stream in in that packet from you received emails, right? And uh those are all included in there from the residents. Yeah.

So So it sounds like we're kind of let's table it. Let's let's relook at this and go forth. Needs to say Yeah. And we just need a motion. We can go to motion if somebody's ready to make a motion. It's yours. Go forth. Um, I make a motion to approve. No, no. Table. What are we doing? Table. Continue. Yeah. Or Yeah. Continue to the second one. The second one. Yeah. Continue to We keep saying table, but we really mean continue to the next. Okay. So, motion to continue the request. I move that Orms City Planning Commission continue the request for further consideration to April 15th. Is that

April 15? April. April. April 15. April 15th. Oh, April 15th. April 15th. Okay, I'll get in one of these days. I second. He didn't finish. Oh, he did. Sorry. Oh, no. Well, we're just continuing it. That's all we're doing right now. Yeah. Yeah. So, we got this. Got it. So, then I have a second. I'll second it. I feel really bad. Can you remind me of your name? Carl. Carl. Thank you. I've been like all day going, "Oh, what is it?" I'm hiding over here. Sorry, I will learn everybody's names. I promise. So, Micah moved and Carl seconded that we continue this item to the April 15th meeting. Okay. Jeff

I I I I I Susan I did as well. And then Britain. Britain, did you just die? I did. I Okay, so it's uh I was going to say unanimous. It is unanimous. So, we will um continue this item at our next meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right. Item 5.3, which is also a public hearing. It's the primary building height and residential zone text amendment. quest to remmend sorry to amend portions of article 22-6-8 of the Orange city code relating to allowable heights of primary buildings in single family residential zones.

Okay. Thank you. So um this is as you said a text amendment about residential height uh 226-8. Um just a quick review of what the proposed amendment does and what it does not do. Um it it does a couple of three things basically. differentiates between flat roofs and pitched roofs for residential structures uh the primary structures specifically on residentially zoned properties. It lowers the base height that we allow and allows additional height with additional setback up to a certain maximum. And then it implements what we call a graduated building height envelope and we'll go through the slides that explain a lot of those things as well. What does it not do? We don't change the way that we determine building height with this proposal. Although that's something that we um may need to look at. It also doesn't remove any exceptions that already exist for chimneys and coupoopas and things like that. That's a normal uh a normal kind of exception in all zones. And then it does not remove there's an existing allowance for 45 ft of 45 ft of height in the R12 and R20 zones for parts of homes that have large setbacks to property lines. It doesn't change any of those things. Um to get into the specifics of it, uh again I mentioned that we don't change in this proposed amendment the way that we determine height. we measure from the average grade uh elevation and we go to the top uh highest point of the building. So when you see maximums in the red line version of the code, that's what we're suggesting is that maximum would be the very highest point with the exception of chimneys and koopas and things. Um to that point, flat roofs versus pitch roofs. Currently, our code does not see any difference between those two things. Um, in this particular in this proposed amendment, we would suggest that anything with a pitch of 312 or greater is a pitched roof structure for purposes of the ordinance and anything less than 312 is a flat roof structure. That's important because we would be suggesting that the heights allowed for

pitch roofs are generally greater than those allowed for for flat roofs. Um, the minimum setbacks in a zone, zones typically like the R8 zone will have setback requirements of 25 feet for the front, 25 ft for the rear, and typically 8ft sideyards, 8t or 10 ft depending on where they're located. But if your if your home that we're reviewing for height meets the minimum setbacks, the height allowance would be 30 ft as opposed to the current 35 ft that we allow, then you get one additional foot of height for every additional foot of setback from whatever required setback that is. So, if your setback was required at 8 ft, you get 30 ft. If you want to get to 35 ft at that property line, you're going to need to go at least five more feet, be 13 ft of setback. Uh, for flat roofs, that would be less. The minimum setbacks would get you 20 ft of height. And then you'd get greater setbacks and greater height up to 24 ft as a maximum. In the R8, in the R5, 6, 6 1/2, 6, sorry, 6.5, 7.5, and the R8 zones. Uh by far the most common of those zones is the R8 and the R six or 6.5. Uh they have the same setbacks and uh to to a large degree and they would receive the same height um allowances. The R12 and R20 are larger zones 12,000 ft and 20,000T lots required. Pitch roofs for those at the minimum setback we would allow at 35 ft. That already has as we mentioned in that previous slide, sorry, an allowance for up to 45 ft for certain portions of the building. This is the specific of that. 20% of that total roof area can be up to 45 ft as long as it's 50 feet from property lines. That's already on the books. Um, we don't have complaints or issues with that that we've ever seen that I could find. So, uh, we've left that intact. Uh, however, flat roofs have not been treated differently. And so, we wrote new draft material for that. Minimum setback homes in the R12 and R20 zones would be allowed 24 ft of height for flat roof structures. And every additional foot of setback gets you one additional foot of height up to

28 ft total. Uh with that same exception written in 20% of the total area if you're 50 ft for property lines, but only up to 32 ft in height, not the 45 because the flat roof structure. Does that make sense so far? Okay. The um the third part of the proposed amendment that we're bringing to you tonight is the graduated building height envelope. And the language is uh that that's listed there. The height of all principal dwellings in single family residential zones is subject to limitation by the graduated height envelope created by starting at a point on the property line 8 ft above the ground and then sloping a line at a 45° angle toward the center of the lot. The entire building must fit under this envelope with following exceptions. Um, and this law makes more sense in the next slides that show you the pictures. Dormers and Gables get exceptions from that to certain standards. Um, and we'll go through those now if that's all right. So, this is a depiction of the envelope. Matt did this for us in our office. Um, this is showing the property line and that point 8 ft above where we would draw an imaginary line and from that line draw a sloping 45° angle plane and everything fits underneath that except for those um items dormers and gables. This is a gable end that would be allowed to to protrude from that envelope if you want to imagine it that way. Stick out. I was looking for a fancy word for that. Gets to stick above that envelope but only at a certain level. So 1.75 times the height at which it intersects the envelope. Sounds more complicated than it is. If it intersects the the envelope that we've drawn at 10 ft up, then they this top of this cable can't be more than 17 1/2 ft to the very top. Now in no case in the same in the language that we've drafted, in no case does that 7 does that 1.75 times get to exceed the height that it's otherwise allowed 30 feet or 35 ft depending on that setback. Again, uh the same thing goes for dormers except that it's a

little more simple. Dormers can protrude and um sorry, dormers can break that envelope, but they never get to exceed the ridge line of the roof on which they're located. And then we have some rules about how many there can be, how many in a row, how far apart they need to be. So that again, the point of all of this is to break up that mass on those higher portions of these homes. The reason for that, um, this is another version of that diagram. Shows you that 45° angle, uh, the projecting gable, etc. that 8ft property line change. I wanted to put it right here and superimpose it with this home. This is a home in ORM. It meets the setbacks and requirements for height. But you can see kind of the issue that we have with infill residential development. That's the purpose of this proposed amendment is to try to address that kind of um that kind of structure sort of looming above that property line. At the minimum setbacks, at greater setbacks, it's not a big deal or not as big a deal perhaps, but uh that's that flat roof creates that mass on that second floor. Uh under the regulations that we're proposing, that would be allowed to be about that tall, 20 ft at that property line. and they'd have to set back further to get up to 24 and that would be the maximum in this case. It would also have to meet these guidelines for that graduated height envelope. So in some cases it may not be possible to do a flat roof if you're too close to a if you don't have the space to get a little further from a property line and fit that flat roof underneath that envelope. Um I hope that makes sense. Is that clear?

Can I ask one question about the envelope before we move the hood? Is the meeting point 35 ft? Is that or it's just literally 45 and then it's within that. Okay. 35 is still your maximum. If the if the planes intersected at 1,000 ft above it, it wouldn't matter. 35 is still the maximum. Period. I just wanted that for clarification. Right. So 35 ft. Well, 35 ft may or may not be at that intersection depending. Can you turn your mic on? Sorry. The envelope is where the intersection happens from 45 degree angles.

Well, yes, exactly. So the the envelope show this point here is just where those 45 degrees intersect. But that might be well above 35 ft depending on how narrow a lot is or No, it Yeah. has no basis lot size. Exactly. Not y structure size. Exactly. So it's an envelope but everything has to fit underneath it but it still can't exceed that. 35 is an absolute maximum. Period. End of story. Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Um just and I I think I know the answer to this, but with 20 to 24 feet, you really on a flat roof, you do have room for two stories. Sure. Generally, is that correct?

That's right. You could you could still do that. You could still have two stories. We we shied away in this in this proposed draft from limiting stories as opposed to the heights and stuck to the we're trying to we're trying to address the effects on neighboring lots and properties as opposed to uh trying to do that without limiting floor plan choices and things like that. Susan uh on the flat roof 24 ft and you said it doesn't How about How about fencing for like a patio up on the ceiling? Are there restrictions on that or is a house in Provo I drive by

fencing on a flat roof would would be considered a parapit. Parapits are usually allowed to exceed heights except when they're intended for occupancy. So if the parapit is the way that our code is written right now, if the parapit if the intent of that kind of railing or parapit was to allow occupancy of that patio on the top deck, then it wouldn't be able to exceed it need. It could be there. There's no prohibition on it, but it couldn't exceed the heights to be sorry J. So occupancy means you can't actually sleep up. I mean on the roof up there people being up there but you could go up there on your patio with your fence.

I that might require a determination like an administrative determination line would be that that's occupancy. Okay. Okay. So you're using the space. Okay. Good. I I would I would consider exceptions for angsty teens hanging out on roofs but they don't require parapits or railings. They just do what they're going to do. So that's my standard. Realize it's not quantifiable but there it is. Yeah, we would consider that occupancy. We have in the past if it's if it's intended to allow people to spend time on the roof other than to maintain or to a parapit a true parapit is to screen material like an AC unit that I kind of want to hide and say got it okay then you can exceed but not for railings for top decks.

Sorry Jared for sure derailing your presentation continue. Oh no you're fine. Uh any other questions? Okay, I will go back to um just one other one other point to make is that this proposed amendment would apply to new construction like this building here. Uh this was a new home built on a lot uh in obviously an existing neighborhood with a a significantly older home. Um but it would also apply to uh additions uh to residential structures. So an older home in a neighborhood and this is the addition to that home. This is part of the same home. It's not a not a duplex, not a twin home. This is a single family home with a weird addition that maximizes the height

and a fence on the roof. Don't you do you see it? Yeah. Weird back there. So, that's that's the reason. Sorry, Jared.

Oh, no. You're fine. as as as land gets more scarce and as people want to infill those lots, our code just has not has not addressed these these issues and many codes don't. Um so we're we're trying to stay ahead of that curve and and address those kind of things. Um that's my presentation about the proposed amendment. Um we we still need to address other things, but this is our our um our attempt at addressing the building height as it's measured. Absolutely. At any rate, we still need to address grading and things. Haven't been able to do that successfully yet, but we're still working on that. So, we'll probably be back in the future with additional code changes regarding this kind of issue.

Thank you. Did you have something from the work session that I cut you off on? I was asking Susan. Sorry, Micah. Go ahead. No, I I think it's been addressed. I think it was uh it was regarding the last issue. It was on Marshall. I couldn't remember which item it was. So, I just wanted to make sure we got back to that. I know it was two hours ago. So, so right now cuz they're the because the city's kind of the applicant to some extent for purposes of this.

My division is the applicant. We actually filed a we we try to do all this kind of stuff um exactly the way anybody would. I'm listed as the applicant. I had to sign things. I'm on the hook for this. So, I will not call you back up. That's okay. Yeah, I'm just kidding. So, it is technically a public hearing. It is. So, we can open for public comment. Everybody loves the stuff that I write. Clearly, it was perfect. Right. No. So, we will go ahead and close the public hearing because there is no one here to comment and time for us to discuss. So that's I guess

thinking sorry I should wait for you to acknowledge he I was actually going to Darren was Oh I I was just going to say I don't know if I said it before this seems like really nice work and you've done a great job. Thank you very much. Great. Aaron will keep going through it and find Aaron will keep going through it and be able to tell you that it's not the case. But eventually, yeah, I'm just trying to think if there's any possible reason that we would not. What would be the down? I I I can't come up with anything. And your visuals are extremely effective.

We're we're trying to strike a balance with it between still allowing people freedom of architectural choice and floor plans and etc., and not trying to stifle, you know, the the infill of homes cuz we I'd rather see I'd rather see smartly done infill lots as opposed to 16 more acres of of green field done where this kind of thing doesn't cause an issue. I'd rather that we address uh places where we already have water pipes and we already have sewer pipes and we have a missing tooth or two in a row of homes, but not have that loom over other people's homes and cause problems. So, we hope that we're striking the right balance.

Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward. Britain, do you have any comments? I do not know. Okay. So, if there really is no further discussion, we can go to motion. I move that the Orm City Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for proposed amendments to articles 22-6-88 of the ORM city code relating to allowable height for primary building in single family residential zones. Do I have a second? I second the motion.

Okay. Carl moved and just seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. Would either of you like to say anything or any further discussion? I guess we're all pretty much I like the direction this is going and and like and like Jerick said, you know, we there'll be some fine tuning. This isn't like the Constitution where we have to have a an amendment. We'll we can we can tweak as we go along if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, we can. Okay. Anyone else want to say anything? Because I I I didn't really get to say anything before. So Okay. And I the the staff has worked really really hard and council has given input and we've talked about it and I think this is a like we said this is a good step forward. I'm sure we will find other places that need to be tweaked with it as we move forward. So okay then we'll go to vote. Micah I I I I I Britain I Okay, that's unanimous. We will forward a positive recommendation to city council. Thank you. Okay.

I appreciate Britain weighing in from the roof where he is being annexed. It's the We look up every time. Britain, are you there? Just I keep thinking he's up there. It's up there. I would normally ask Gary at this point, but he needed to leave. So, I don't think there's any further business. Don't think we're okay. Okay. We can uh do I have motion to adjurnn? One motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Britain. I'll second. Okay, Britain moved and Darren seconded that we adjourn. Jeff, I I I I Britain I

Okay, it's unanimous. We are adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Thank you. Thank you all.