Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

on TV. Perfect. Okay, we will go ahead and call our work session to order at 4:29 p.m. on May 6, 2026 in the city coun council conference room. And we were going to begin tonight with an update on the heart of downtown, but we need to postpone that to our next meeting on the 20. And we will uh start, we were talking about, we've had some questions about how to access things uh for our packets and how to read packets. So, we're going to start with a brief overview of that and then we'll get into some of the agenda stuff. Okay. Can you guys see go? You want to switch? Just watch. I see us.

See my screen. Is that okay? next month.

All right. Um, what I'm going to do is so when we it it occurs to us that sometimes we don't do a great job of describing how everything works. One of those things is that when we put out we call them packets and there's a little bit of history to that. Um, as the other day, so I'll just give you my spiel. It used to be back in the day and those of you that were on a planning commission a million years ago will remember that we used to put together big paper packets. We would collect all the all the reports were on paper. We'd put them in big vanilla envelopes and people like me would run them all over whatever city, dropping them off on porches like elves of some kind. We no longer do that, but the term packet has persisted in the lexicon of planners. We still call them packets, but now we're uploading them to the website, right, to this civic plus agenda and send you out that link. And we just thought it might with Meline, we thought it might be a good idea to just run through what it looks like when you get that link and it takes you to that page. um how you then access the reports and the agendas and what that looks like. Is that okay?

Yeah, it might be boring. Sounds helpful. If it's helpful, great. If it's boring, too bad. We're going to once you get it done, it's easy. I mean, there

Yeah, it it makes sense once you've seen it done and but just so it's not too foreign. So, we send out that link and that link takes you the link that you get in that in that uh in that email takes you to this page, the city meeting page. you wind up here and then if if you don't know any better, you look at it and go, "Well, they sent me the wrong link probably." Right? [laughter] If you scroll down just a little bit, you're going to see the meetings that are going on, the ones coming up. Today's menu, you'll see the May 6 Planning Commission meeting. So, let's just use today's as the example. There's two things you can do. When you click it, tap on that and it's going to take you to this page. You can just look at the agenda right here. That's helpful enough, right? and you get rid of that little this know how to help us thing. They're never helpful. You can zoom in and out whatever. But as you're looking at the agenda, all of the packet items or what we can see, we actually just call the agenda packet

is all just attached over here. Um and some of the things are always the same. Um other things can be different. The minutes, you can read the minutes there, the yes

staff report for the first items. The the only confusing thing, and I don't know how to fix this, is that our agendas are numbered differently than the web page for them. Civic Plus will call this Platinum is item three. That's um it's in the threes on our on our deal. I guess that's true, but the minutes aren't item two. They're part of item three also, but setting that aside. Okay. So, you can go and look at these things. If you pull up the staff report, let's just use the Bergkshire staff report. It'll show you that staff report. And what we're going to do is also kind of go through a staff report as well if you'd like and see kind of the parts that that matter and the parts that don't matter as much. If you have limited time and you want to breeze through one, um you can focus on the first page, etc. But all of these all of these staff reports are going to be there. Other things related to Birkers, you can look at the plat. These are what we call attachments. We'll refer them as attachments. So there'll be more than than just the staff work document itself. That'll have some things in it, but a lot of other things will be just attachments. So if you really want to get into it, look at some of these other things. The existing plat, the proposed plat that shows you basically the difference

where it should Yeah. Up one more. A little higher. A little higher. Nick left of the this magnifying glass. Left of the magnifying glass that it'll get rid of that little panel for you. Thank you. Yes. I uh hated that. [laughter] You can also download the packet. Yeah. And that's really helpful sometimes to read be I I do it every week and I do it just often read it on my phone, but it allows you to like look into some of the plants and get into things too. That's great. I've never downloaded them that way. So So where would you download it? It's a little down arrow next to like agenda packet. You click right there. It will download it. And it just tells me download.

Yeah. And you can do it PDF or plain text. I do PDFs cuz then it formats a little bit better. Do you do PDFs cuz you think you're fancy? Absolutely. [laughter] Just checking is you can't ask.

Sophisticated is the word I was looking for fancy. So good point. So you can see I and this is this is my personal thing like on something like the Bergkur thing. It's what I'm always complaining about. I get the proposed PLA amendment but I want to see the existing. I want to see what it was and be able to compare that to what it's going to be. So I can see what they're doing as opposed to just it's just easier for me. I have to see the existing too. So that's nice. And then there's always a street view you can look at, see what's going on. The vicinity and zoning maps, those are also usually in your staff reports. And if they're not if they're not both in the staff reports, you're going to see them both in slides that we do, but you look at them ahead of times, too. But it's going to show you where it is. And then we go on to other things. Um, should we look through a staff report? Do you want to look through a staff report?

Yes. Just for fun. So, if you look at a staff report, we'll pick the next one on Boulder um parking reduction. This is a site. Just as a reminder, I think we talked about this once before. This one's in blue. You see that blue? You're going to know this is an administrative or a planning commission approval item. This one doesn't go on city council. Those are always kind of a rust colored. Why we chose rust colored? The blue makes sense because Orum, but I guess we had to choose something different for city council. Orange and blue are on the opposite sides of the um color theory wheel. It's a color theory again with the sophistication, but please excuse me. They're like complimentary colors. Yeah. So between red and yellow, you've got orange. I' chosen everything.

I'd have chosen two barely different shades of blue personally. So it was fun to distinct there just wouldn't be any color involved. Yeah. or is that [laughter] even it's kind of like picking black and white but with an actual color. You have to choose color but it makes sense.

Okay. So if you if like I said if you have limited time the way these are organized right now and we we may update this at some point but right now we're going to keep doing this simple stuff like the date, the item number. So that'll correspond to the agenda if you needed that for any reason. We try to include on the first page somewhere a kind of a an aerial shot with the property highlighted in some way so you can see where it is just right on the first page if you didn't see that attachment. That way you wouldn't even have to go to the attachment necessarily. Right. And your site information is on that sidebar. And if you're color blind that actions is actually will tell you what you're doing as well, won't it? That's right. Right here. It tells the where the land use authority and underneath here too it'll say administrative or legislative on the orange.

Okay. And before we leave the heading also notice prepared by because sometimes it's Grace, sometimes it's Rebecca, sometimes it's Jared. And if you have a real specific question about it, go to those individuals.

You Yeah, absolutely. That's and that's why we do that. So, if you if you have a question and you're wondering about it and you don't want to talk to somebody like me that won't know, call Grace in this case or Emma's Emma did the Birkshire one, the consent agenda item today. So, you're going to see all those names on it. That's perfect. Thank you. That's great. Um, and then the applicant's name is always on there as well. Um, and this first this I skipped this. I shouldn't have. Right underneath here, it'll tell you kind of what's going on as well in simpler terms. on our more complicated ones, um the zone changes and things that have specific language, we try this part will say something a little more descriptive and less detailed. And then the but the motion will always give you the the language that needs to be used that has to be to to meet requirements amending this, amending that. Sometimes we include that up here as well if it's not uh if it doesn't confuse the issue, but we try to be more descriptive up here. Site plan, parking reduction. So you notice she hasn't in this part right here cited the part of code that that relates to. It's a site plan parking reduction at this address. Right here under request that first thing below you're going to see the citation for a code. So you can go and read that if you want to where it is in code 2215.

So I do have a question. Yeah. Would you rather have us reach out to you about questions or wait and bring them up in the meeting so that public That's a great That's a great question. Um e either way is fine. If you want to call earlier or email earlier, say I question or that question, that's great. Um, if it's something that you feel like you want to get a reaction with everybody else so everybody's aware of what your question is too, then

bring it up here. Um, we always try to keep time in this work at least some questions about the agenda that need to get asked. So, and that's why we do it. So, you can ask them here. But if it is something very specific or it might get lengthy or you think needs to be addressed right now that you notice because eyes, you know, different eyes see things and catch things. Yeah. Shoot us a quick email. Uh send it us up. No problem. Either way you under the background statement. So all this sorry all this sidebar stuff is this just tells you that we've noticed it. uh the notice requirements are different in some cases and we just like that for our records too. Some of this is just for um really so that uploaded into the per good for them too to we did notice it that we you know these are the notices went out etc etc information the general plan designation is industrial the zoning is M2 the acreage is 1.01 know what acres and you guys are the land authorities. So that's all in the sidebar. If you didn't go anywhere but right here, you know at least a little bit about what's happening there and the rest of it is all just so we get into the body of the report under background and review and there's more information but you've got to read to get it. So if you're not up for that, we try to bullet things a lot too. Um, so the other thing you can do is as you go through the background of the review, um, if you're short on time, look look at the bullets and say, "Well, I I understand the zoning. I'm not I'm not worried about that. What are the other things that I want to read about?" Well, reduction of the required parking. This is going to explain all of that. That works. Um, other things that are bulleted, too, requested reduction options. So, you just kind of look through those bullets and they might tell you what things you're interested in or what you want to know more about if you don't have time to read the whole report. That make sense? And the last item is always going to be the development review committee's actions. You remember last time we were

together, we talked about that development review committee that it's been going through iterations of reviews with staff um up to that point. We'll tell you when it went through development review committee. At this date is date of that formal meeting that we have on Mondays. um where they where the list kind of gets finalized as to what's moving on to the commission. Um and then the last part of the report is always your actions. So alternative actions, it just like to just even though it's repetitive a lot of times, make sure you know these are the things you can do as the commission. You can approve it, you can deny it, you can in this case continue the request and then we give you language for a motion if you want to use that language. Free to use your own language as well, but want to just use the motion language, you can. So, I hope that makes sense. Is that

Yeah. Any questions about that? I think these reports are super helpful when I read through. I think you do a great job of them. That's nice to hear. Good. We're trying to um we're trying every once in a while we make an assessment of what we're what we're reporting on and how it's going and if we need to include different information. Recently, we've been talking more about zone changes and what we're putting in those reports and how much analysis is going into those before it gets to you than what not in heat in the reports, not in the reports. It's sometimes hard to choose what items get uploaded, what attachments get put up. So,

traffic studies, we have traffic studies and geotech surveys and all kinds of stuff. Um, so again, if you're ever reading these and you're not and you're wondering about something like a geotechnical study that gets mentioned in the report, you want to read it and it's not one of the attachments. Yeah, shoot us an email, give us a call, we'll send it over to you. Just at some point we just wonder how many megabytes we need to load. So an average geode on like a on a real decentsized site plan could be like 38 pages. So that's it's not like we're like

let's put this somewhere else. It's just it's literally the documents we get are so so many so many. So if you if you want to see them and you want to read them, we always have them. We can give them to you. I'm thinking like once we've gotten the geotechnical report and it was actually important to understanding what was going on on this thing. That's usually if you give it to us it's probably a flag that something's important.

Yeah, that that would usually that we would hope that we'd get that right. But again, if like if you're reading through this report, this is this happens. If you're reading through the report and saying, you know, I would actually like to see the summary of that geotech report, then it could be that it would have been important. You just missed it or didn't think about it this time. Absolutely. Want to see it. Sometimes we should have included it and just didn't. Right. Does that make sense? Any other any questions about how we do that? How you access that? You get that link, go to that first page, click on what you want. So you can do them in any order you want on down through. Um

Jar, can you just remind us when um that gets posted? Yeah, various days depending on how far behind I am usually we the goal is always to post it by Thursday uh before the meeting. the meeting on Wednesday today. We would have liked to have posted it on Thursday, the week before, even Wednesday if we could, but our Wednesdays are a little crazy because of of this meeting here. So, it's hard for us to post. We get ready for this meeting a lot on the Wednesday. Usually ends up being Thursday or Friday. Um, you'll see that we try to do it Thursday a lot of times, especially if I'm heavily involved. It becomes the day that comes out.

Always by Friday. I don't think Have we missed a Friday, Becca? Um, when I was first hired and it was just me and you that it came out on a Monday because it was just Yeah, we try not to We'd like you to have the weekend ruin your weekend with some reading like this. Yeah, we appreciate that. Good homework. It's good stuff.

Yeah. So, watch for those emails. Um, yeah, and you guys are like the principal recipients, but there's a whole lot of people that get that same link. Try to send it as well to the we send it as well to the not in the same email as you guys, but to the applicants so they always have a chance to see that their their report is up and they can read that. I like for them to be able to see what we've written about, what they've asked for. Try not to surprise them in staff reports or saying anything controversial or something in staff. Usually, they've been apprised of that before. I don't like them to show up to the meeting and find out that see that they weren't aware of it. So they get it, council gets copies of it, copies of that link. I don't know how many of them go to it and read it, but copies and whole bunch of staff people. We try to send it to the department heads, too, just in case they're interested in in whatever's going on. So you never know. And it's just a link. So uh anything else we should talk about about that? Does that make sense? Okay. All right. Well, we'll keep uh we'll keep putting out the reports as long as everybody wants to read them. You don't want to read, don't tell us because this. So, anyway, there you go. And that's if you were ever wondering, that's why it says agenda packet. It's just part of the language now. Okay.

All right. I was going to say while you're on this, I have a question. So, is now absolutely segueing into that anyway. We drove out by this yesterday and the building's up and it's a lovely huge big building, right? And they're talking about a potential parking on the north and these sides of the building. There's a pretty dramatic slope on those two sides and they're right at a corner. How is the parking even a possibility adjacent to the building to pick up more spaces? Well, they they actually showed some examples, I think, in that Oh, I know. But those actually have space back off the road. It's a significant.

Yeah, they've already landscaped that area as you probably saw. And it is down like about Yeah, it's a steep steep. And so I'm like I don't know how they'd fit cars there. Plus, it's one thing if you're in the middle of a street to be able to back onto a street, but right by a corner is a whole different We don't allow or want cars backing directly out into the public rideway. that's a thing that we don't do. So that that solution for us is not really tenable. Okay.

Um there are and they've used and they've given examples in this area of places where they're doing that and I I can't I can't tell you for certain that this was done when this was not a public road or if they just didn't worry about it because it was industrial. It's it's not a good practice. Right. But there's a big space between the building and where the street starts on that side. on this side. This building is it's I mean I was surprised at how little space there is for them to be considering parking. Yeah. That that setback was that that building setback that's showing is almost just what's required in the zoning. Yeah.

So they would basically be removing any of their landscaping that's required by the zoning replacing it with parking and backing that parking directly out the into the public rideway. Neither of those solutions are really viable for for us. We don't feel engineering. So, do you feel the same way about uh parallel parking along the building? Um, parallel would be easier in a stomach along the building, but it would do the same kind of thing if it wasn't all just tandem. It would have to parallel park the street out there right now on the street. Sure. But you mean Susan, are you saying alongside the building? Like if they were on the side of the building because it would be prohibited close to the stop sign. It it would be safer for the it would it would essentially just move the street to their building

and then let them parallel park there. So it would it would net you nothing because you're parking out on the street right now. Yeah. And you you couldn't really do six tandem you couldn't have landscaping between that parking on the road and then that would work. So you basically just replacing street parking with more street parking. That's on that street except for fire hydrants and corners there. There's no restriction on parking on the street. There's probably six or eight parallel spots along the street off street. That's why I'm not that not that narrow really if you look if you do the engineering street's not that parallel parking.

It probably feels narrow because of the way that they have there are lots of buildings that have that parking coming straight out into it and I didn't agree.

Um it it it feels a little mean to tell them they can't do that, but we just we don't do that anymore. If we did it officially at one time in a in a parking lot, if this was an access way running between parking lots of buildings, that's different. But on a road that the city is maintaining and and and has as a rightway, we're not comfortable letting vehicles back directly into them unless it's absolutely unavoidable. And because this site has already been developed doesn't feel very unavoidable. So that's one thing we could we can point out about this this application options that they want to explore here. No,

only one of those is really in your purview as the commission. That's that reduction in parking. The other two to remove this landscaping and provide parking there instead would require variances from two different body that variances board of adjustments does. So you can't really tell them, okay, we'll we'll do that. Even even if you wanted to, you couldn't tell them we'll let you remove that landscaping and back your car directly from. It take a special expense become a city engineer and a very important. [clears throat] Um the other option is parking.

It's just a making a parking deck. Super expensive. Well, they you don't you'd have to approve a new site plan using that, but you'd have no reason to. It's just that's so really the option they're asking for is the reduction. But they showed you those others as well. My parking deck would ruin what the intention of the building was originally would have proved what they were building. Is that what you were? I think I remember this one. This is like very old back in the the Yeah, because the whole idea was to have more kind of warehouse with some office space kind of.

Yeah. In it. And that was the intention. And so even the parking is set up already for having more warehouse space than actual office space. Yeah, it looks like in those when I drove by the two middle bays there um they have gone three stories on the office space and the externals do seem to be singlestory. I don't know what the exact square footage is. I guess that would have been what we calculated the parking at the time. That's required was based on what's built. I think Jeff wants to say something. Jeff does. Jeff, you have a question.

Uh, yeah, guys. Thanks. Hey, just curious on this parking issue. It seems like we're making this decision based on Pathright's current use. What what what what happens right Pathright's gone and somebody else comes in and and we've changed it for the president. Yeah. The president. What? Yeah. Can you address that?

I I can. Um you're that's the right at the risk of sounding silly. That's the right way to think about it. That it's if Pathright doesn't need all the parking and they can show that, then you still have to assume that anybody else coming in might need more parking or what what have you. It was designed with Yeah.

parking to fit the building as it is and changes to that. you have some standards that you can look at for when you should and shouldn't reduce parking and um most of them aren't really applicable here. Um different uses that use things at different times. Their their argument hinges mainly on most of their people that would be working in the facility won't be there at the same time. Well, anybody can run a business that way. So in some ways you could say well look if we reduce the parking for these folks that parking reduction is tied to behavior of the business right behavior of the business. So a new business coming in could be bound by the same things I suppose but that's difficult to police going forward.

Yeah. And I think this is a good discussion to also have in the main meeting is to talk talk this through right because you're really talking about creating more office space and stuff too. So yeah, it's difficult

cuz originally, you know, as you can see here in the original plans there, the office space compared to the warehouse was extremely small, very minimal. In fact, so small that a lot of people would say, you actually really should have had more office space, frankly. But uh and and the the parking that was created right there on that lot itself was actually enough to take care of the parking requirement for that for that design. but they also included parking below in a lot below. So, um but then those those laws got separated and now that parking isn't allowed down there. It's not the same owner. So, then the question is, oh, they want to build a bunch of office areas in there now. Not just that, but they are adding on or to the second level. So, they're adding square footage here. And even though a lot of the office space is being used for storage, still we're dealing with with something that's completely different than what was originally the original site plan here. What we're dealing with.

Oh, yeah. The next I was in Yeah. decides not to use that for storage but there office space hall center. Yeah. And and also from what I what I have heard from them, the tenant is actually only using half of the space. The other half is still empty and there's still the the parking requirement is for double what they have right here. So they'll still be they would be short in any other kind of build. They would still be short. It's mostly you'll see in that in that coding that the the parking reduction is mostly tied to mixed uses

where you can where you can definitely say, "Oh, look, the the standard would be X, but we can show that not going to use all of that parking at the same time." So, we can do a small reduction. That's not really what's happening. So, well, we'll talk about this far more excessively in there. We don't want to we have to be careful also how much we say in here because then it seems like we've preddecided before we've gotten there and so I I just want to put that caveat out. It's good to know. Um any other questions related Thanks Jeff. Good question. No.

All right. Um, let me Are there any other things that you are there other I guess we're to or we can talk about we can talk about the process. I still I know we had to kind of hurry through the the discussion about the the development process and making an application what that means. We had to kind of hurry through that a little bit and we didn't get a lot of time to ask questions or take any sort of tangent roads. We can do that. We can ask more questions about we can have more discussion about the agenda items to make sure if there's any burn any questions. We maybe we ask about the agenda items first right now. Are there any other questions on any I do have a question.

Shocking totally have another question. Shocking. And that's the property that's owned by Orange City. Can you explain that process to me? Because it seems like the city is getting into the development of residential neighborhoods. Yes. Misunderstanding that. Is this a new step? We're not misunderstanding that. Is it something you've done before? This is city- owned property would ever do. No, it's not normal. So, I guess my question is Why why the change

and why the split of I think it's five lots that goes to the developer and some stay just a discussion on that and maybe this is better for out there. I it makes sense in both it makes sense in in both places. So if if it's all right with you this is f there's a lot of background this piece of property is difficult and I have I've encountered this piece of property in some adjacent development for all the adjacent stuff over the last four years. Yeah. This is a really problematic piece of land. So the city owns it, but but because of the way the roads are, the way the sewer is, the way the land drops off, what you can't really tell is how steep the drop off is right there. Well, I was walking yesterday. Yeah,

it's pretty steep. So, it's it's kind of a very unique little piece of land.

It's a good question. It is a unique piece of land, and I think that's why the city's in this kind of in a unique position. A lot of times what a city would do with a piece of property like this is declare it surplus if we don't need it for anything. It's it was going to be a park at one point. It came from UD do it. It was UD dot owned land. Um UD doed it to the city. The city thought about putting a park in this area. It's not um it's not very well suited for a park based on some analyses they did. Uh city eventually felt like well maybe it could be residentially developed. It's difficult for a residential developer to to do it because it is so steep. There are so many different connections that need to get done. And there's one other reason that the city is in the position that we're in and I think asking for it as the city instead of a private developer. Um these are first of all these are the five lots that would be part of like they're part of Aadia Heights. It's already approved, but it changes Aadia Heights because we instead of culde-sacing and ending, it comes through to serve our property. So, we have to include them, but that's why they're included.

These are really our the city's lots here and Aadia Heights are already kind of approved for some lots in that area. We just reszone them to be the same zoning as us land from them and run road through. Um the reason that one of the reasons anyway that the city is interested in reszoning it ourselves and then creating a subdivision is that we can serve other interests besides just selling the properties at the end. We we probably won't build homes there, but we would develop a subdivision if we're approved. If we're approved, we would develop a subdivision and sell lots to builders so they could build homes there and recoup money that gets spent in putting in infrastructure. Um, a private developer won't do some of the things that the city would like to do in [clears throat] developing it. Um, we would provide an access easement to loop water lines and create sewer line connections as well. Looping utilities is a big deal for us. Uh, it costs money to do that and developers always want to be compensated for that money they would spend helping the public buy an additional lot or smaller lots or whatever else it might be. uh when we're the developer, we don't need to be compensated for that because we're trying to do it. Um we just don't have the same ends. Um selling the lots off and recouping money is great, but we have other ends to serve too. We can also provide these folks on these up this east side have had um kind of an unofficial access through this public property to their backyards. This is steep up here too and they worried about losing access to that property. we can provide as part of our subdivision this wide easement that would allow them access up there still. Um and then eventually they could if they needed to we could create a small road that would let them access that back property and then they could flag lot their sub they could flag lot their lots and create subdivisions. So we wouldn't we wouldn't be cutting them off from possibilities of future development. Uh another developer coming in here worry about

that. Just put in their subdivision and call it good. and we could bring all those things up, but it's it's not for sure that we could require them to consider all those things in a subdivision. Um, so we we'd like to be in control of some of those kinds of issues. And then there's the final matter and that just that it's it's an a less not undesirable, it's a less desirable piece of property for a developer just because it is so steep and um the infrastructure will be difficult to put in. We'll have to contract some of that, but we have a lot of in-house expertise in this kind of thing. So, we can do those util we'd like to utility work ourself. We'll probably put in the road ourselves as a city. So, we can we can recoup costs that they wouldn't be able to uh making the property developable for us if not for somebody else. It might never get developed otherwise. And it sits in um we can't develop it as a park. Well, we can, but we can't recoup any costs. um and it wouldn't be a great park and then um it sits and causes problems. Sits as a vacant parcel attracting nuisances and issues. We also get to sewer these folks down here in this there's a development down here that we have trouble providing sewer for that's trying to get off the ground. We can provide sewer to that area. We can we can allow sewer connections for these folks that are on septic tanks right now. Um that would be that's a goal the city has to provide sewer connections where we can. uh it lets us do a lot of those things and we can create an easement for utilities to loop but also for pedestrians to get out if not vehicles at least

walking around families etc. So, so I'm looking at this. There's a flag lot there, right over there? Yes. And then there's a orphaned lot. What's the access to that one right there? That one's a flag load as well. So, our flag lot ordinance. I just don't see the that I I get that. I just don't see where the It's an easement. So, it's it's this this right here. Okay. Provide an easement to get to this lot as well. Our flag ordinance will allow you to do four lots of single stem. So, it's kind of that that makes it easier.

They're both part of the flag. Both flags technically of that lot. Good question. Um, and again, we won't we we'll if if it's reszoned, if the planning commission recommends it and the city council approves it, then we'll continue working this subdivision concept and bring them it'll come back to this body for a substance as well. Wasn't there another option for a road through or

option as well? Well, in the neighborhood meeting that we held, um the the major the great majority of people that were um there if there's going to be a subdivision, a residential subdivision would rather that it be called this act rather than go through. And so we we've focused on because it's not really subdivision is not really the application tonight. So, I haven't included the through lots or the through street in the just because it's not it wasn't the one that was sort of the choice of the folks that were the meetings that live around there, but also it's not subdivision tonight. So, we just chose one and went with it. Thought showing two different ones would be a little confusing and and bring the focus to the subdivision rather than the zones.

1500 South doesn't exist. Uh 1500 South. So, there's not there's no 1500 South. It's just we're loops around the from 360 west. Yeah. An apartment building in this as part of this that does not exist currently. No, we we'll create this loop. Um it was going to get created anyway. Um uh subd called Sunflower Dunes has been approved down here. So, it's going to be created anyway. We'll just we'll front two lots on it. Okay. Literally just right now just turns into dirt like the road. Well, and I saw the I mean some of those homeowners are using that space. There's stuff's out there already, right? Yeah.

But and just to go along with what Jared just said, this is just a concept plan. This isn't what we're voting on tonight. And we so we need to be careful not to get too No, it serves it's its purpose, sorry, is to is to bring those questions up so that we get so we ask the right questions about the zone change. Is it appropriate to change this to R8? Yeah. Go ahead, Susan. So if part of your motivation is to recoup the costs of doing these things which will benefit the neighbors and then in the comments it mentioned that there's asphalt and concrete that's up there and you don't know how much and you don't know if development.

So if it turns out that you can't recoup the costs does that change the equation on what will happen and is that anything you need to even consider? And in a way it changes the equation in a way. So far the test pits have been good. We haven't discovered as much concrete and stuff as as the as the urban history says there would be. So so far so good. Um if it did turn out I guess the difference would be this. Say it this way. If it did turn out that it was not feasible for even the city to build on it or to develop it as a subdivision certainly won't be feasible for anybody else. If anybody can do it, it's it's us.

Um, so yeah, really the consideration question is should this change from PF to Right. Right now it's public facilities. That's right. That's what we're considering. That's what we think. The upside is the infrastructure benefits and more single family homes. Yeah, single family. More single family homes to the community,

right? The solution for the solution for another developer guess would be that you they another developer trying to make it work trying to make a project pencil would be in her asking for uh a multif family zone that we don't have or a PRD of some kind to to recoup costs that they're going to put in and we still might not get the infrastructure that we want. We're able to do it with single family. We we would prefer that. So that makes any sense for sense. Well, thank you. Any other questions on any of the items at this time?

This one the Brook is that up against is that backs under Provo City does at the very end of OR because I saw that LLC sliver on there and I didn't know if that was a Provo. Yeah. LLC that own that propert. I don't have a drawing of that, but Oh, wait. I do have drawings. I'm still in my city meetings.

Yeah, the the owner uh yeah, he's right on the border and he also owns a lot over in the Provo right next to the the uh the golf. So, so he actually purchased that area, too. And I said, "Sorry, you cannot combine Provo and Oram lots together." So he's just combining the two lots that he has in Oram at this point because he basically he wants to create a large garage and he can't have a large garage on a lot without a residence. So he's combining the lots so that his accessory building which is the large garage can actually be built. This this is the same development that Mattingly applied and isn't in the same

same general agreement. Yeah. Above it quarter of a mile. Is it different? I think. Yeah, I think it's there. We we recently approved one that's just like round down the block. I mean, it's extremely close. So, I think we have we got several of them right in the same area where they're where they're combining lots. Um Yeah. So, um Jared, can I ask just a general question? Uh going back to the the parking reduction discussion we had before. I mean, this is an administrative item. Yes.

Um because it's not a a zone change, right? It would need to go to city council. Typically, administrative items have been thoroughly vetted by the staff and the staff feels comfortable with them. It sounded from our discussion this is a complex one. It is. Um and so what would you say is the general latitude for the planning commission to say we don't like this uh administrative hidle?

That's a that's a great question. Um this I'm trying to think how to characterize the conversation we had with them about this. there's lots of like they presented those options and said well we could ask for a variance and an exception and we told them we don't think you'll you'll get that said well we could build a parking structure or deck of some kind to add the parking okay that's really expensive and the other option you have is this kind of long shot of saying hey planning commission what if we got a reduction in parking and we said well if you want to take that shot you you probably don't you probably don't fit the bill for that with the kinds of things that we would be considering and you're supposed to ask that when you're doing the site plan. It would have been would all been built the whole site plan would have been built around that concept.

Um we're we're saying we don't make recommendations right on something like this to you and you% right. Usually we've added it we're comfortable with it. Um you know we're we're not there's we're not like like we said about the backing into the rightway. We're not comfortable with that. told them we're not. That was the only comment the DRC made, I think, was Yeah,

we don't want that. We don't want that. And they're they're not um I should I should qualify that a little bit. Members of the DRC reviewing are like, well, the the parking problems, uh will they be absorbed down there in the industrial area? Okay, we don't know. The best solution would be for them to find other parking they lease and use for their employees other parts of this area. They just haven't been able to do that. this um you know without without making a recommendation it's not a great solution to their problem. It's this building was not designed and the site was not designed for the intensity of use that they trying to put in there with pathite. That's just how it is.

So the implication of that for me is that not every administrative item that makes it onto the agenda is endorsed by the staff. Right. True. Yeah. We don't know [laughter] on the application um placement on the agenda is not an endorsement but but in the meeting I is it in the public meeting is it appropriate for the planning commission to try to ensure that they understand your level of support for each of these.

Sure. Absolutely. I and I think the thing thing with this is that if if you're not comfortable with their and we've included some slides that they did, so they're going to make a pitch to you as a commission. Okay. Um so after our slides, we have their slides. They're going to go through their reasons why they think it will be okay and we'll let them do that. Um, if you as a commission are not comfortable with the solution, article 22155E has reasons that you should and shouldn't allow this. What you would do is if you're not going to um well, let me let me back up. One of the first conditions is they're supposed to do a traffic study to do this. there should there should be a traffic and parking study that demonstrates that they meet the the the tenants of 22155e. They have not done that. And when I asked them about that, they said, "Well, it's a catch 22. We don't know if we're not going to be able to build the thing, then the parking study's going to show zero." Well, I, you know, respectfully, I disagree. The parking study, if the commission does anything tonight, if you were inclined to approve, I'm going to break our promise not to make our recommendations. My recommendation on this tonight would be that you should table it at the very least and say you need to do a parking study or we can't even consider it. I

was going to say, do you have those 2215e in your presentation for us to be able to see? They're not on the slide. It's in the staff report. It's in the staff report. Okay.

They're not on the slides, but they're in the staff report. If you if you look at that section, it'll take you through those. And the first the first one is the one that matters. that is that it's based on it should be based on a a parking and traffic study that says that this is going to work for a reduced parking standard. They don't have that. They're just making their pitch saying, "Hey, we we don't want to do that because if we don't get to do this, it doesn't make sense." Well, I you know, that's an easy to me an easy rejection. If they're not going to do that, then I would suggest that you should table it and say, "Do that and don't come back until you have it." That would be my recommendation because that's the that's the baseline for this. [snorts] But yeah, inclusion on an agenda sometimes just means that the DRC can't get anything else yet um and can't we can't hold them up for so place them on an agenda. So what they did in this case was vote to place it on the planning commission's agenda and let them make their case to you.

We need to let them make despite our conversation. We need they are the applicant. It is our this is their due process right to come to us. It's in our code that we have the right to give them this exception and we need to hear them out and and go through the process fairly because that is one of the key things we need to make sure that we're thinking that are we being fair to this applicant. It it makes it kind of difficult sometimes to again if you're and just for for your own notes if you were inclined to decline it to deny it you should do that based on not meeting the requirements of article 225.

Is there any way we could get those printed out for us really quick in the next 15 minutes because I think that would be helpful to us be able to see those as we're listening and talking to be able to accurately tie it back one way or the other. Thank you. And if that's okay. Stuff like this is kind of complicated and we're grace.

We're trying to not these are difficult ones. They they require you to make certain findings and things like that. And we're trying not to make recommendations. If I were making a hard recommendation on this, that's what it would be. You should either deny it or table it because I don't feel like they've met H25E. They could if they do a study and it shows things that I don't think it could show. Just curious, Jared, under what conditions would the DRC say this is not uh ready for prime time go to planning commission and yeah, you would not put it on the agenda. It's the the thing you have in your presentation. It's the circle.

We've been going through the circles on this and they wanted to make their pitch to you. So the commission so that's where we are and normally that's what we've said is you need to meet these things but at a certain point we just turn those to you commission had a question. Go ahead. [clears throat] Did you? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Uh what is the implication of denial? Does that mean they cannot do the study and bring it back? Um with zone change it would be it's not a zone change. Um I'm not sure it closes the per year. It closes this to reapply. They have to reapply. Sure. So be a final decision on them.

Well, if you're not sure, continuences keeps the application open while they're trying to address things. But closing it actually leaves options as well. It sounds like they have to reapply. Yeah, but they has to pass a period of time before they reapply. Only by the zone with a site plan, they could reapply again. But is that a painful process? Just money. Just money and time.

Money and and time. Um there's there's some case to be made that that So in all honesty, there's a case to be made that we we could have said as a as a planning staff, we're not taking you to the planning commission until you have a study. And the DRC could have kept rejecting that fight with them for a while. Um didn't do that, but we could. So that probably it may have been more appropriate, but we had that conversation with them about baiting the case under 22155e that it's not a great case and they wanted to go forward with the application anyway. It's kind of a launch. That slide real quick from your presentation from last time. Oh yeah, hang on.

Because I think seeing it visually will help because they can get stuck in this loop, but they also have the choice to try their luck with us. At a certain point there is a there is a provision in state code refer to as the RIP court provision. They can demand that at a certain point they get heard by the planation instead of just staff. Staff is the DRC. So at a certain point they can pull that and they get to see you anyway regardless of what we extend words. Yeah, that's kind of where we are with

it and just being on on the other side of this. [snorts] I mean, I don't want to throw injections on it, but it's just like, guys, you knew you were going to be running up against this. And it's like, well, now that we're what 85% complete, help us fix this so we could, you know, it just Yeah. It just doesn't sound well because you knew this was going to happen. You knew parking was going to be an issue. parking. I think one of the solutions says, "Well, in a couple years a couple parking into your business."

Yeah, I get where I get where they're coming from. They committed to this and they thought they had a bunch of parking. So, I we don't have a solution for Okay. has to fall where it falls. We're gonna if there's nothing else directly right now, we're going to go ahead and adjourn because we're trying to start patting out a little more time between our meetings. So, have a few minutes to bathroom break. Thanks you guys. Thanks. We will adjourn to our regular meeting. Oh, no.

No, it's like totally fine. I just want you guys to know. So, when you guys get texts from me, I'm texting you through like our podium web chat system that literally everybody in the city of ORM can see. So, just so you know, it's not going directly to me every single time. Um, if I'm actively going back and forth with you, I have the web page open and you were talking to me. Um, but if you text me a day or two later, that number could cycle you back through 311 until they reassign it to me. So, Oh, okay. Just so you know, so address you could be broadcasting out. Yeah. So, I don't care. Yeah, you can call you directly.

Yes. I'm trying to sign it. You can you can call my number or anything. I I just know we had a something where somebody was asking me like, "Hey, I can't find this thing." That was me. And then, [laughter] but what ended up happening was that question got cycled to 311 and then I didn't see it until way. They were like, "I don't guess email." Yeah. You know, if it's been more than an hour since you texted it just fine. Yeah, it's fine. So, what I'm I neglected to introduce Emma or have her introduce herself to you guys. Emma's our newest associate planner.

Hi guys. Yeah, I've been here as planning intern for few years, but now I'm here with Becca as your planner. You guys fully staff again, but thank just for clarification, we are we will meet. Thank you so much. Three.

Okay, we will begin our um ORM city planning commission meeting and call it to order at 5:31 p.m. on May 6, 2026 in the city council chambers. Before we begin, just there was an item that was sent out with notice for uh it was called Wolverine. That is not on our agenda tonight. So if anyone happens to be here for that, that will be I think on our next agenda. And then we will begin this evening by having an invocation by Carl. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity we have to come together as community members and we're grateful for the opportunity we have to be part of the civic process. We pray that guidance and direction as we discuss issues and that we might be able to have a meaningful discussion and one that is easy to work through these issues and that uh will be kind and understanding one to another and we ask for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Thank you. Okay, we will begin with item three, which is our consent agenda items, which includes item 3.1, approval of the March 18th, 2026 minutes. [gasps] Um item 3.2, approval of the April 15th, 2026 minutes. And item 3.3, it's a plat amendment, the Birkshire's Plat 5 located generally at 1269 South, 1100 East. And there were some changes that needed to be made to item 3.1. So, whoever makes the motion on this, can you include a reference to in accordance with the changes that have been noted? I move that the ORM City Planning Commission approve the consent agenda with the changes to 3.1, the meeting minutes on the 18th of March.

Okay. Thank you. And just to be clear, those are some name changes as we've had changes in planning commission that needed to be adjusted. And then do I have a second? Okay, Susan. Oh, a second. Okay, Susan moved and Carl seconded that we approve the consent agenda items. Um, we'll begin with I I I I Jeff I

Okay. And just for clarification, we have one uh commissioner who's joining us via Zoom tonight. So, okay, we will move on to item four, which is one of um which is a administrative item. It's a site plan parking exception request for Boulder Industrial located generally at 1353 West 130 South. Jared,

thank you. So, um this is a request for site plan. Um there's an existing site plan on the property, but this is a request for an exception allowing a reduction in the parking requirements that is um contained in article 22155e. It's usually done as part of the site plan and that's why we've put it on the agenda as a site plan item tonight. Um the applicants have requested um a chance to reduce their required parking on the property by 50%. That's the maximum that's allowed under 22155e. uh get to a little picture here to show you. There's a prop a building that has been just proposed, but this is actually built now uh and developed with this much parking. Um it it's been the M2 zone. It was built as a flex um warehousing and office uh building. Office spaces are required 250 ft or sorry, one space for every 250 ft warehousing and manufacturing, one space for 750 ft. So, this was built with those square footages in mind and provided 31 parking spaces to meet and just barely exceed their required 30. Um, a a new entity purchased the building after uh that site plan was approved and wants to build it out in a different way, including much more office space that would require them to build an additional 22 spaces up to 53 spaces to to meet the requirements that we've described here, 21 to 250. In addition, um the planning commission is allowed under that ruling or under that article to consider a reduction in parking based on the standards in that uh 22155e. So that's what they're asking for tonight. They've asked to bring um some slides and talk to you about those. So I'll go to those slides when they're ready. And um do you have any questions for staff? There's a few different options, but the the option that's within the purview of the planning commission to consider is just that uh 155E. Um

so just for clarification on that, Jared, the Yes. 53 is required. A 50% reduction of that would be 20 27. Yeah. And they they've got the 30 on. So at 50% reduction, they could meet it if it were granted, but not a lot of wiggle room. If you reduce 20%, they won't make it. Just make sure my math's not Yeah. No, you're you're right on. 22 additional spaces in in addition to the 31 is what they would need. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Question. Okay. Is now the time to talk about this? Let's have them do their presentation first. Perfect.

Yeah. So, if the applicants here and like to come forward to do their presentation. Yeah. Thanks everybody. Thanks Chair Coleman and the um council members. appreciate it. So, I just put this in SBAR format just to try to make it as easy and and I don't want to take all your time on anything, but so we had purchased this property and when we had it, it actually had a southern lot with it. So, it had about 70 additional spaces when it had gone through. Could we have a Could we have a point of order? We need to have someone's name when they come up and present. Oh, you please provide that for us. Thank you.

Yep. Land and trust. So, um when we purchased it, it had the southern lot as well. Um, and after we'd signed all the contracts and everything, the uh, individual said, "Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to sell that. It was under contract with another group at the time." And so I said, "Well, you know, that's fine. I don't want to do anything that was uh that you don't intend to do." And so we revised the contract after that uh point. Um, and uh, you can go to the next slide here. And so you can see that was the additional when it went through the city initially, that's what it was. It was intended to be a multi-use buildout type property and and that was um, what it was uh, purchased for. But again, he said, "Oh, that wasn't my intent." And I said, "Oh, no problem." So, it wasn't until 6 months later we realized, "Oh, wait. Now we can't actually build anything out on this because it's not allocated sufficiently to build uh even to meet code with um ADA bathrooms and everything. It wouldn't have enough space to even build that out for the four units." So, uh next slide. So, now we're in the point of saying, "Okay, what can we do about it?" So, we talked to the lot below us and said, "Can we just get a contract maybe for 20 spots, something like that?" and they said, "No, we're already um we've already leased out to another group for 2 years to the west. All of those are owned by a different entity um which is that any hour uh you know, plumbing, electric, and so on." And so they're not interested in in having anything there. So we realized, okay, we're we're kind of in a a tough spot here. Um and when we look through the different options, um uh next slide, our actual utilization's quite small. So, uh, this is for a medical device manufacturing company. So, it needs a lot of major equipment, but it doesn't need a lot of employees. So, typically on, you know, all the sites together, they'll have eight to 10 spots that they're using is is pretty standard. Um, the other one, so unit three, the the group would need four spots, and unit four has evening spots only. And so, it's well under the actual intended uh use with it. We tried to get creative here to see what can we do. If we restriped it, we could get all the way to 36. Um and so if we look at the various reductions on that bottom right

table, you can see a 25% reduction would mean um uh the need would be 38.5. So we're just a little bit above 25. I think if we had a 28% um and even if we had the caveat where we said let's do a six-month grant and do a um a parking study after 6 months and if we find that these numbers are not accurate then we rescend or I don't know what the options are, you know, from a city side. We'd be more than happy to do something like that. uh because I think we'll find we're well under the actual need with it. Um there is a possibility of leasing or buying spots from the south lot in two years after their contracts up and we have a good relationship with the with a group there. So that's a possibility if we ended up needing something like that. But again for the intended use I don't foresee that ever, you know, being an actual necessity. Uh next slide. So solution two. Um I don't think this would ever be popular but every other you know uh industrial area near there parks on the street. I imagine the city's trying to get away from that, which is probably why it's not allowed anymore. Uh, but if you said, we're the literally the only one who wouldn't be doing that. So, if you said, "Okay, you can do it." That would also solve the issue. But it gets rid of green space. We'll put trees on the roof if you want. We'll, you know, put vines on the side of the building, anything you'd like. So, more than happy to do that, too. Um, that's another option for it. But, uh, and next slide. So, recommendation I think may make more sense to restripe plus look at potentially option one. And again, even if we had the six-month caveat of saying, "Let's do a parking study to prove out that these assumptions are correct." So, and that's all I have.

So, just to be clear really quick, um, are you asking for the 50% reduction or you're asking for a 28%? I think 28 would be okay. Like, after we submitted these, I went back and said, "What's the bare minimum where we could probably get everything, including restriping?" We went and measured everything. I think 28 would be enough for it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Do does any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant at this time? That was bad grammar. I apologize.

Yeah, thank you. Uh thank you. Um I I guess I'm not quite understanding uh the six months idea, but is So you say that after 6 months you could do a parking study. Wh why do you want to do one after 6 months and not now?

Well, if you did it now, it would come back zero because we can't it's this weird catch 22 where we can't uh build it until we get the permit uh clearance and they wouldn't be able to clear a permit till we have this. So, um but with that kind of spirit in mind, we thought that if we did do the parking study after we had actual utilization going on, then it would be a little bit more valid. Um, and at that point, uh, you could put as many teeth into it as you want as far as saying, okay, you have to, um, you know, build out a concrete superructure or something like that. Um, and we'd be, uh, completely fine with that. So, I'm just trying to think how, if I'm in your shoes, um, how would I answer this saying, well, normally we'd like to get a parking study, and if again, if we did that, it would come up with zero. So,

what does that mean, come up with zero? Well, since the building isn't built out, there's nobody parking there right now. So, um, all spots are completely free all day, every day. In order to get the permit to be able to build all this out, we have to, um, get this exemption for it. Otherwise, you literally can't build out almost anything. I think you have 180 square feet is all you can build out total. So, there's there's no usage in the lot. It's it's virtually empty at this point. Yeah. It's just a shell. And Yeah. Right. So, I mean, there's Yeah. the parking study would say, "Yeah, no one accesses lot for five months."

I apologize to derail our conversation for a second. Hey, Rebecca, could you help put some extra chairs up or get some grab someone to put up some extra chairs? We have more public visiting, so we we love it when people come. So, okay. [clears throat] Any other direct questions for the applicant at this time? Uh, yeah. How long have you owned the property now? Since July. July. How long do you intend to own a property? Well, it depends if the company fails or not. So, as long as the company keeps going. We intended it to be able to grow out further. So, we're going to use half the space and the other two will just subleasase out. Um, and those were the numbers of the subleases. Um, but yeah, it would be intended long term.

Really macro question. You're in medical device manufacturing. What are like the top two industries that are that you're most dependent upon? Well, so I'm so I'm a urologist is my kind of primary occupation and this was just stuff that I ended in invented and then I eventually bought out the company and then you know started bringing it here. So it's uh urology and heavily dependent in that area. Um since I developed all the areas and am uh essentially does all the research on it and everything like that. I think it' probably be most dependent on me would be the maybe the most accurate answer. Um so if I went to jail or something then the company may struggle a little bit. Okay. Then what about um uh supply usage? Is it materials you're going through? Is it uh utilities you're going through?

Yeah, utilities we use a lot of power because we do all of our own molding and in-house manufacturing that way. Not very dependent on uh too many outside groups just because it's mostly plastics and just the materials that way. Um so there wouldn't be many dependencies that would cause it to fail most likely. Um right now it's the number one in the world by 80fold compared to the second competitor. Um, and so, uh, projections look good long term on it. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah. Okay.

I have a question regarding the office space that you're planning because you're planning to add an additional floor up above which is up in your office space which causes the problems with parking. But it seems it says in the documents we received that the office space is being used for storage right now. Could you help alleviate this problem by not putting it in his office space but putting is there a way to change that?

You can. The only issue with the current one, you literally can only build out uh maybe a 15 by 15 ft room total for the whole thing. So even to allow the assemblers somewhere that's warm and and a lot of the rules with metal medical device manufacturing are real strict. You have to have a certain amount of lighting at a certain height, certain temperatures, and even storage of the equipment has to be real strictly controlled. And if you have a clean space, it's even even worse. So, a lot of that will be zoned as office space, but in reality, it's not. It's internal storage. Um, but because there is use of an assembler who goes in, things like that, office is more appropriate on it. So, but but we do we have big sections that are allocated to storage alone. So, it'll stay in that one out of 750 ratio as opposed to 1 250. It's just this originally when they had sold it, they'd sold it as a um, you know, build to suit type thing. And so it was um you literally couldn't build anything out unfortunately with how it's set up right now.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll let you know if we have any more. Um uh Jeff had a question. Yeah. Jared, u just wanted you to confirm what by code are we required as a commission to to um have in order to grant the parking exception. Is the parking study, for example, a requirement or optional for us? That's a good question, Commissioner. The parking study under 2215E is required. Um Okay. Yeah. Can that parking study be done

um based on a future usage of the property like we phrase properties we can Yeah. So so it doesn't have to be built in order to have study be done. No, it it wouldn't be as reliable. It would be a different kind type of study, but in in the type of study that's anticipated by this code is one that would be hypothetical and based on likely usage and and things like that. That's because it's part of the site planning process. If this were being applied for as the site plan were being done, we would require the parking and traffic study as an analysis of future likely uh usage. So, it it's possible to do. Yes.

Right. But even if we agreed and and and wanted to do this, we really can't grant the exception by code without the study. Is that just there? That's correct. There's no wiggle room on this. It sounds like that's correct. In my opinion, you you need the study to grant it.

Yeah, I would like to actually read article 22-15-5E because this is something brand new for the planning commission. This is the first time we've had to encounter this. And so I think it's instructive that we all read it together. So we know because because this is administrative item, we're making a very specific recommendation based on what the our current code is. So, um, it says the approving authority of a site plan may grant a reduction of up to 50%, and we're the approving authority for this one in the required number of parking stalls for commercial, industrial, and mixed use developments if the applicant presents a parking traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer and demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the expected vehicle use and parking space demanded for the development will be less than that predicted by the Institute of transportation engineer vehicle generation rates or less than city parking requirements because and then it gives us three options for this kind of second half of it. The site incorporates a mix of office or retail uses with assembly and occupancy type uses specified in section 22-15-4F which reduces the need for parking spaces because of shared parking. or two, the site is adjacent to a mass transit route and the applicant provides a transit stop and related amenities including a public plaza, pedestrian seating area and additional landscaping not to exceed 25% of the total area dedicated as a transit stop. And three, it is demonstrated that the use of alternative modes of transportation including mass transit, bicycles, and walking by customers, clients or employees of the development will reduce the need for parking space. So basically I think there is a requirement a required need for having the traffic study and then either that traffic study can show us by clear and convincing which is kind of a higher it's a much

higher bar um it has to be more likely than not uh for clear and convincing and or you know by the transportation study by the that is there'll be less trips by the institute or that there will be these others but since public mass transit isn't really an option and those are kind of off the table. So, pretty much we would need a traffic study that shows that this red reduction in number by 28% would be met by what the building was being used for. I was going to ask Aaron if that was correct, but he is.

We're missing our attorney, our city attorney. But um so I I think it does come back to just in the nature of the code that at the minimum we need a parking study [gasps] in order to even be able to further this conversation. Um yeah so comments from commissioners I we're we could have discussion now. So Britain's thinking um so the so we can do a hypothetical study is what you're saying. It's just there's no way to know if it's it's correct.

Well yeah there's there's no way to know for certain that any study like that is 100% correct. But that's it's it's not an observation. It's a it's an analysis of the likelihood. And then is that I mean is that something that we can throw into a development agreement? Um you I don't I don't think so. I think based on the reading of it, it should be part of your it should be part of your analysis if you grant it. Um and it needs to be basically needs to be the kind of analysis that um that Mr. Truss has done but done by a done by a qualified traffic engineer to do it as a study and present it as a as a prerequisite

make the same findings and then you can consider that. But then it needs to meet the standards of item one because it it clearly can't do two and three because it's not by mass transit. So I I would read that the same way. Maline,

can I ask one other question first? And I did have another It's slightly tangential, but the this addition because we when we approved the site plan, we approved these flex space buildout off space. I'm going to be honest. I'm the only person here who actually remembers approving this building and I have wondered what happened to the parking to the south because I thought it was part of it. So thank you for clarifying that. Um, but it sounds like there's other additions and office square footage that's being added to this. At what point is a new site plan required as part of this process?

That's a great question. Um, if it makes changes to the parking lot, to the parking area, then it would require a new site plan. Um, if it's if it's otherwise everything's happening internally. If it's external, then it it gets a new site plan. if they want to modify the landscaping, if they want to modify the parking configuration, uh if it changes more than 10% of the the site, if they added on more than 10%, we do a new site plan. Otherwise, this is this came up because of the tenant improvement building permit that came through the office and we couldn't approve the the parking for it because of the lack of the southern parking.

So, uh that's when we started having this conversation, but otherwise, it's just related to the buildout of the interior that wouldn't require the site plan. Okay. So, the addition the additional office space that's being built in is interior to it and doesn't count for the 10%. No, it wouldn't count for that. It needs to be um it it it's only be coming up as a site plan because they would need this parking reduction, right? No. So, that's I just wanted to clarify some of that just to be clear.

That's a good good clarification. Susan, I was just going to say I think I have a concern with any kind of exception to something like this because right now you have the tenants you expect, but we all know that life changes and that might change. And if we've done a reduction of parking based upon the particular usage, if that usage changes, if your tenant leaves, if you do really really well and you need to have a huge facility somewhere and you move and someone comes in and they have that office space, they're going to want to put people in those offices that then we don't have the space for them. And so I'm still a little concerned with adjusting.

I have a question for the applicant that's along that lines. Could I ask you as the applicant, you're the building owner and you're also the tenant. You're you're building this out for your own manufacturing. Is that correct? So this isn't that you've purchased this and you're leasing this out to other tenants. This is you've bought this building to use for your own manufacturing. Yep, that's correct. So basically, if you changed uses, you'd be selling it at that point anyway. But I mean it would still have some of the same concerns clearly. Thank you for answering those questions. It would have some of the same concerns selling it to another tenant because it would come with the parking reduction which also could make it difficult to sell in the future which would reflect in its listing price.

Right. Yeah. So thank you. So I mean I'm going to put forth a propos proposal and we can talk about it. I think that we do need to table this until a traffic study has been completed because I don't even think that under Jeff Oh, did you want to say something? Sorry. You mean you mean to say parking study? Not traffic, right?

Traffic. Oh, sorry. Parking. We do so many traffic studies. It just rolls off the tongue. A parking study. Um, until such time that can be done because that leaves it open for the applicant to be able to, you know, to to make that option for himself. And it also means that we can actually follow the statute. So if if there's no objection, I think I'll make the motion that we continue this Oh, yeah. We continue this item until a a parking traffic study has been done, which leaves you open-ended. That's that's the trigger for it. Until a parking study has been done. I second the motion.

Okay. Okay. And then we'll go to vote. Carl A I I I I I I I Jeff I

Okay, this item has been continued until we get a parking study. Thank you. Okay. And just uh as before we go into our um public hearing items, uh I think there was an item for Wolverine that was um um noticed for tonight and that is not on our agenda. It'll probably be on the agenda next time. So if you're here for that, just letting you know you can leave, but we'll want everyone to be here and let us and hear from you otherwise. So we will begin with item 5.1, which is a reszone for 360 West 1500 South is a request to reszone the property located generally at 360 West 1500 South from public facilities PF to residential R8 for the uh development of a residential subdivision. It's approximately 5.45 acres. And I want to I think this one's a little bit different because the city is actually the applicant on this one. So So in this case, staff will be talking to us about it and presenting what the city's been working on.

I promise to be hard on myself about it. Okay. Um this is the property. Um this is the particular piece. There's also some associated properties here that are part of the Acadia Heights subdivision. I'll show you that in the next couple of slides. Uh but that comprises the 5.45 45 acres that we are requesting the change of zoning for. Um these uh these this acreage is in the PF zone. Um and oh well let me back up just a little. Well, I'm going to come back to that. I should have ordered these differently. This acreage is in the PF zone. The acreage that's part of Aadia Heights is actually in the R12 zone. So that's why that's the reason for the two different um two different zones in the request. Uh what the city is asking for is a reasonzoning of all of these properties to the R8 zone, also a single family residential zone. U PF is the public facilities zone um used for parks and uh city buildings and things like that. Uh the general plan actually this is the snip from the land use map. Uh the general plan calls all of this out as low density residential. Um so the the R8 zone is in keeping with that uh category. it fits. It's one of the preferred zones uh for that category. Uh just to the north, there's some uh medium density residential uh category, but all the rest of the surrounding is in that low density category. And the zoning is is um the same. You have R12 zoning here uh and R8 zoning around it. Um and again, the PF zone here. The city's aim in asking for the reszone is to potentially create a subdivision for single family homes on the property. Uh again, this is part of the Acadia Heights. It would reconfigure the lots that have been approved there slightly to allow a road to continue up through and access the property that the city owns. That's the reason for their inclusion in the uh in the subdivision. Uh and as part of the zone change application, the city um this is 18 lots. There are two different ways that

we could do this. We could do a culde-sac or a through street. Uh because the application tonight is for the zone change. Uh just a little bit about process. If the planning commission were to recommend uh approval of the zone change and the city council were to approve the zone change, we would come back to this body to the planning commission with a subdivision application and that would be either culde-sac or a through road of some kind. We didn't want to show both options because the focus of tonight's meeting is whether or not we should do it at all. R8 zoning whether or not that's appropriate. In any case, um, during our neighborhood meeting, we chose to go with the the culdesac for the visuals tonight because during the neighborhood meeting that was held for the property, the majority of people that were at the neighborhood meeting preferred a culde-sac option to the through street. Um, although both have their merits and there were some folks that wanted to see the through street instead. Should make that clear. The majority were for the culde-sac. So, we've shown that. Uh, nothing set in stone. And when you uh recommend for approval or denial or if you recommend it for approval, it goes on to city council. that doesn't approve a subdivision. It just approves the change of zoning that would allow then an application for subdivision. There's lots of hurdles in subdivision process. Just so you're aware as well. Uh a couple of things to talk about. Um our engineering department did this visual for us to show kind of clearly the outline the boundary of the property cuz it's it's hard to show here um cuz there's different pieces there. But uh as you look at this, this is 1600 South coming up to access the property. Uh none of the designs that we've looked at would continue 1600 south. It would it would always curve into the property and at most it would go out to the north, but likely we would we would propose a culde-sac of some kind. In doing that, we would also like to um to provide for sewer and water utility connections in this area. It makes providing sewer to other subdivisions uh that have been approved and looked at in this area possible. It also provides potential sewer connections for properties that are to the east that are on septic. Those could be connected through easements to a sewer line in this in

this road. Uh it would be a looped sewer line too and a water line as well. Um the city can provide through larger easements uh a way for folks that have these eastern properties to access the rears of their properties. Um and with the sewer connections and things that are potentially available, that would make um that would at least preserve the possibility that some of these folks could flag lot subdivide their properties in the future uh if they so desired. this wouldn't cut them off from that possibility even though we weren't wouldn't be extending the road further east. Um the other thing that we uh those are kind of the the reasons that the city is interested in doing that this is the easement that would provide a a sewer connection and also pedestrian connection even if we do a culde-sac. Um this would be standard public rightway. We're we're looking at single family lots. the city would be interested in developing a subdivision, not in building homes, uh, but in selling those lots once they're existing as paper lots. Um, that is my presentation for you tonight. If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them.

Thank you, Jared. Um, any questions for Seth? Yep. Slappicant. Are you okay if I answer from here instead of going to the podium? Is that Yes, you can. You That one I'm going to warn everybody. That mic is really loud, so stand back when you talk it into it. Um, I'll do Brighton and then Carl. Uh, you mentioned, uh, there's a portion of the property that's pretty steep. What is the grade on that? I don't know the grade off the top of my head. I should have had engineers with me tonight. I'm sorry. It's It does fall significantly. It's a drop off. It's a It's a drop off.

It's very steep. This is difficult property to develop for a for any developer. The city would have a The city can do a lot of things that a regular developer can't do. And that's one of the reasons we believe that if it's going to develop as a single family subdivision, we're we're the likely candidate. How tall is that drop? Tree height. If you're down below, it's it's the trees are it. It's a Do you know where Crispy Cream is? Yeah. Yeah. It's the that drop off on that backside. Yeah. Behind it. Yeah. That's what we're talking about. Approximately. I'm not going to say it's exact, but it's approximately. Carl,

um, just so we don't get convoluted in this conversation as far as the easements and everything that comes in the subdivision planning. That's not a part of this conversation. That's right. And and so that has to go through its own process later on just so we don't worry about that now. Just worry about should this be Yeah. single family. Yeah, that's that's that's a good point. This this is just the question of whether or not this should be developed as single family versus uh staying in the PF the the public facility zone which means it just um it would it would need to be a public facility of some kind. And if it were to be developed as a public facility of building a structure Yeah.

you'd still have to deal with the same issues. The same issues that are on the Yeah. The access and the steep slope. Yes. Exactly. And this is currently we could put a church, we could put a school, we could put public facility would allow a school or a church. All of that kind of stuff, but it is pretty steep, which again compounds the problem of development. R8 would allow for some of that too. It would actually a lot of those crossover. Yeah. And and I think just as a reminder, a park had been what had been floated. Yes. Over the years when I've dealt with the properties around this, that's what's always come out. This was going to be a park.

It was it was that's what the city had kind of considered for it. um as they as we got more into looking at that possibility more seriously, the the challenges of that started to overwhelm the good that we could do with the property otherwise. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Then this is a public hearing, so we will open for public comment for this item. Um if you would like to come forward, please state your name and limit your comments to 3 minutes. and we will open for public comment.

Hello, my name is Dan Lee Ballard and I live at 1564 South 300 West. So, my house goes right up against the property. I'm kind of in the middle on Yep. up. Oh, no, that is me. Um, so I put some notes down. I'm try to keep it short. said, "When I purchased the property four years ago, I was drawn to the property because of this beautiful natural trees and green in the backyard. And I just thought, wow, what a great place to raise my kids. They can play back there. Someday it will be a park." Um, some of the neighbors had mentioned that, oh, it' been promised as a park, and they've been waiting for 20 years. Um, but needless to say, like the first day we moved in, we were walking back there with our dog. My kids play back there. I had my dog had to go back out to the car, but you did see him. He enjoys that park. And um through the four years I've lived there, there's not a day go by that I don't see people out there walking hand in hand. We have a ton of families. I see people walking dogs all day long. And the number one thing we see is young boys playing back there with their mountain bikes and their dirt bikes and with their fathers. And it's a little loud, but it's always like the sound of people enjoying their lives and enjoying the space. Let's see. Um, so whether you guys want to label it a park or not, it is currently being used by me and all the neighbors as a park. Um, so last yesterday I went in and I talked to Rebecca just saying, "Hey, what's up with this meeting?" and she let me know that oh she thought a lot of the neighbors agreed with putting a a new development back there. And so I walked around last night with a petition just it was really just my street that loop around and then the one below it coming back and every neighbor I spoke to said they were hoping it would become a park. A lot of them mentioned same as me purchasing their properties under the the hopes that one day it would be

developed. So, we got 23 signatures within one hour, which I emailed all of their contact information to Rebecca a couple hours ago. Um, [snorts] and then let me see, is there anything else I say? Okay, so I I do hear the the concerns about liability. What if someone gets hurt on the mountain bike or something back there? It is steep just going the short distance, but the long distance isn't really that steep. sort of a gradual incline and it's already being used all day long. It's actually I took a class for mountain biking at UVU and that's where I learned to mountain bike in the back and I thought it was perfect. It kind of is just the right enough upline to where you're out of breath and then you can kind of go down and it has the right obstacles. So, I think it's kind of perfect for that. And to save money, the track is already there. Let's just put up a sign. I have a wood shop. Tell me what you want the sign to say. I'll I'll make you guys a beautiful wooden sign. Um, and then I do understand the concerns about some 911 calls that get to the property. I've lived there for 4 years and I've seen two tents. When I first moved there, there was a a guy living in a tent who randomly I knew from high school. So, um, he is gone. And then now there was one other time. I did make one 911 call cuz an abandoned house in that development to the east was on fire. So that was me. So please don't count that 911 call against this property.

That is your three minutes. So I just want to say that we're losing green space in Utah and Oram every day. This is a chance for us to save this for the future whether we want to develop it now or in the future. So let's not make any quick decisions and let's try to be creative of how we can use this space for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Oh

yeah, the um paper that was sent around actually did show both maps. And so I'm here partly because I wanted to say hey and just Yeah, I was going to say point of order. We need your name. Uh Jeff Mann. I live at 1675 South. So that road that's just coming down this way. So maybe Nope. Go down. You can see where the intersection would be. The road that would lead up to it. Uh, go that way. Yeah, that way. More. More. And then down two houses from there. South. I don't know what that is. Could make it worse.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Anyways, right in that area there. So, close by as well. Um, so I mean, in some ways, you guys sent out a map and it showed both here. And then all of a sudden you guys are saying, "No." And then you're saying, "Oh, there was a majority of this meeting." Just like this young lady. I'm sure I could walk around my neighborhood and in an hour get 20 people. says, "Whoa, we don't want more cars coming in. We've already got the rest of those cars that would be coming into ours." So, while we're not talking about it, please don't suggest it just because the people that were here on the last one that we've already made a decision as a neighborhood. That's certainly not where we're at. I could make a petition and get just as many people to say, "No, we got to have a road that goes through." To that point, though, I would agree. Um, if it's already a park and people are using it as a park, I'm sure I could find even more people in my neighborhood who would agree with this petition that that's way it should be kept. Thanks.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Steve Sammon. I live if you go to the northeast red corner um with the point I Yeah, right there the house at the on this side of the dead end and I own the barn. My wife and I own the barn and the next lot. So, we have that whole uh going south, sorry, there the barn and then the vacant lot just passed south from there. So, yeah, we've been in that house for about 33 years. You know, we were told when we built that uh you know, from septic tank that we'd be going to sewer probably 2 to 4 years down the road. Obviously, that didn't happen on and a park would have been great. We love the idea of a park. Part of our thing is we look at it and we've always talked about it through the years that we're assuming that if it was a park, the parking lot would end up being pretty much right in front of our house and the barn. Um, obviously that's down the road as far as a decision. So yeah, as far as the park is concerned, if it became a park and it the zoning didn't change, [sighs] would the careers and us and the other neighbors going south from us, would we still be able to build if it stayed zoned as it is?

I I will answer that question. this is your time to speak and I will answer that after questions but yeah so I will that's my main concern can I ask is that what you're think okay thank you

okay you um I'm Nicole Van Orman a career as well um we were Sunflower Dunes we got everything approved got a development agreement and I couldn't get one signature from two ladies um blocking me from the HOA which was our water and sewer connection. So our whole lot our every we had manholes delivered, we had the excavation company, we had SWIP, we had everything lined up and those ladies stopped our four lot development. It was four lots about a half acre each. It was my parents weren't selling them. They were mine, my two brothers and then theirs. So, we ended up buying a house somewhere else. We've lived there now maybe n 8 months. Um, our biggest concern is that we got landlocked and there's no way for us to connect to water and sewer. There wasn't an easement within phase one of Aadia Heights. Actually, phase two of Aadia Heights. Phase one has not moved. Phase two has moved, but there wasn't an easement for us, so we could not get through. We can't get through phase one until it um records with the county, I believe, and we can't get in. We have a sewer hole, a manhole on our property, and it we can't use it because it's a private sewer, and they didn't see any benefit in allowing it to become public and the city maintaining it going forward. So our biggest concern is getting water and sewer to unland lock our property. So whether it's a um park or a development, with a park you still have to have

public facilities, you have to have sewer, water, all of that, which originally um I brought up a long time ago that um it wasn't I guess it wasn't very viable for a park park, but it was better for maybe like a bike park or something like that, which I was going in that direction, kind of plugging that. Um and then this was brought up. So our biggest concern is if we get water and sewer. So thank you. Chair. Yes. Where was I'm not clear where that property is that she's the sunflower dunes. The north. Yeah. It's the empty lot between the

the um apartments and the houses on the street. Thank you.

I'm Jay Ly. I'm I own Acadia Heights Plat B, the south part of that and part of Plat A and I live on the souththeast corner, 345 west, 1600 South. And um there's a lot of mixed emotions. And um the happy solution would be if if the careers could get sewer down through the city property and through my plat um to 1600 South, but who's going to pay for that? And so yeah, I I don't know. I mean, I love the trees. I love the park idea. I have a personal private 100yard archery range there. We ride our four-wheelers. I don't want to see to be houses, but but I do want the careers to develop. Um, and the question is, you know, can can that if somebody was to pay to to put the sewer lines through there and water lines and and keep it a park, would the city go for that? Um, [clears throat] I don't know. I mean, I've I um I have um an employee who has been a general contractor for years. He still has all the licensing permits, everything with the city. We have friends, so I keep my llamas on that have excavation equipment there. They they say we can use I have other people who know how to run it. I'm not saying we go do it, but there might be ways to go in and for not a lot of money to go in and dig the sewer lines. I mean, not it still be a lot of money, but it won't be anywhere what a a full-blown excavator would would charge, but um and then the risk for for having a park like they hear the argument like the city doesn't want to do that because it's steep and the liability, but you can go over to um Rock Canyon Park in Provo, you know, you can ski down that thing.

And so that's I don't know. And and the other risk is is you know our our our neighbors down below um their their neighborhood you know they want more more um tenants I mean more residents but we don't want student housing and if I heard like 50% of the houses in that bottom leftand corner are are rentals or could be and so the city's talked about maybe deed restrictions where you would have owner occupied only but you know how many years can you enforce that And you know, and our kids want neighbors to play with, too. So, it's just a whole mixed bag, but um we I would cooperate any I could to help them get the water and the sewer. And um whether there's homes there or not, you know, I'm we'd prefer the trees in the park, but we want neighbors to be happy, too. So,

thank you. thinking maybe you hit almost the city. We have we have someone that called in. Can you hear me? Yeah. So, I just wanted to to convey what they had to say. Okay.

And and this is um more of the focus on culac versus a through street and and I know this is about the reszone, but this is them calling and saying them that they wanted to make a comment on it. So, this is a phone call uh from David Terry. Um and uh he says that he's 100% against the cult idea and that he wants the road to go through because he lives at 1640 South and all the neighbors agree about the road going through because currently 1640 South is a major thoroughfare for people coming down the hill and getting onto the freeway. And so the road takes all the traffic to get onto that freeway and cars come down the hill and they're going really fast. And the day before he called, he said a kid who had a ball uh go out in the road uh and a car came down and hit the ball and almost hit the kid uh and people just raced down that road. So he's he's really concerned about that and feels that if that was developed that the the best thing would be for that to be a through street to help with the pressure of the traffic on 1640 South.

Thank you, Rebecca. So I Can you hear me? Okay. Yes.

Okay. Um, so I did get an email at like 4:30 from an individual who requested um that they have their thing read in. Um, so it's from Amy Liy. Um, she said, "Hello, I live at 345 West 1600 South. My property borders the city property that used to be owned by U DOT and I hear that the city is now wanting to reszone in order to build homes. I am opposed to the reszone." Before we purchased our home, we met with the city and we were assured that the city would not be building homes on the property. The city planner we spoke with told us that the city could not do anything with the property other than make it into the into a park. That assurance is one of the main reasons we chose to purchase the home. There are many people from the surrounding apartments and neighborhoods who use that city or sorry that property as a park. In the summertime, you can see lots of people walking their dogs and riding dirt bikes on the hills. It is already being enjoyed as a city park of sorts. My foremost concern for the development of the property, however, is a safety issue. We live on a street that has been forgotten by the city. In the winter time, the city doesn't plow our street. Every week, we have to hike our garbage up past two homes to the 1600 to sorry, we have to hike our garbage can past two homes up to 1600 South because the garbage service won't come pick up on our street. There is only one way into our home and one way out. Unless, of course, we go through the city property. If the city developed the city property that borders our home, we would be trapped. If our neighbors homes ever caught fire and we needed to evacuate, we would have no way out. Please leave the city property undeveloped. Do not reszone it for homes. Thank you.

Thank you. The public can still come forward. Yeah, I got this flyer. Well, first off, I live at the top right. Tana Oscan. Thank you.

Um, my husband would be here, too, but he's not today. He's out of town. Um, when we bought, we bought because it was on a dead end. We really wanted to raise our kids on a dead end. Um, that street up there that basically goes across the top, there's tons of kids there. And it's kind of a special little place. And while I see all the people on Hidden Hollow wanting that to go through, thinking that it's going to reduce the traffic there, they bought on a through street. We bought on a dead end. I feel like putting our street through I don't know. I It will destroy the community that we have there. Kids are running and playing all day. There's 26 kids that live on just that that little block right there. So I I my opinion is not to have that road go through. Um I saw the two plans, the one with the culac and the one with the through street and just want it noted that I would like it to be a dead end or a culdeac. So thank you.

Thank you. Don man. I live with my husband. 1640 South, 400 West. Um, first choice, keep it a park. Second Aart. Second choice, make the road go through. Um, sorry, I kind of disagree. Children live everywhere on that um neighborhood and also on the south side. But 1640 intersection with 400 West has a blind spot, the inter inter um section. And when you're coming down 1640 heading west, you can't see cars coming. And so that's probably where that kid got the ball got hit. It's just a poor intersection there. And so anything that can alleviate a little bit of traffic off of that instead of going making another culde-sac with more traffic going up to State Street and stuff will definitely help with the traffic accidents happening there. So thank you.

Thank you. My name is Chuck McCartney. I live at 326 West, 1450 South. When we bought the property where we built our home, we bought it specifically because it was a dead-end street. On our street on 1450 South, there are 18 kids on our street. We have some of them here tonight, but these are some of the older ones. Um, on any given night, you can go down that street and there's kids playing everywhere. We have uh students that'll come down assuming that you can go straight through to hit those apartments by Walmart. They come flying down our street, realize it's a dead end, turn around and go back flying again. Uh on the on the back of this are two options. My choice or my uh preferred choice would be option two for the culde-sac so that would continue to be a dead end so we don't have that situation. it it's an accident waiting to happen with all those kids if if they if they put that straight through. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey, would anyone else like to come forward for the public comment on this item? Okay, then I'll go ahead and close that at this time. And there were a couple of questions asked, so I will start. I hope I wrote this down correctly, but there's concern for some of those those lots on the east that would be landlocked that if it was even developed as a park, would they still be able to have access and be able to develop their own land or have because I know we talked in the premeating a little bit about the potential for there being a road along the back if the city were to develop it,

right? and and access along the back at least um for those folks. Um I I can't really answer that necessarily very well. I would assume that it would be possible um for access to continue through the park in some way. Um that could get trickier than it is with a you know easements along the backsides of properties. Uh for sewer I'm I'm unsure. Uh parks often have sewer if they're in more remote places on vaults and that might be the case here depending on cost. That's one of the issues is that without the without the possibility of selling lots to recoup some of that cost, it's unlikely that the city would run a sewer line all the way through this property and connect the sewer in 1600 South with the sewer up here at 360. So, a park might I can't answer those cuz I don't do the design of parks. I just know that when parks and public works looked at this, they felt like that those options were very limiting. Um, so it's possible that access would still be um potentially uh available for these folks. um might be more difficult further down. Don't know. Um as far as sewer goes, I just don't know. The the better option for that is obviously the subdivision than a park.

Okay. For sewer and water connection, right? And then one of the other questions because it came up in a number of comments from the public. Has it been considered to be a bike park as opposed to making it a full green sprinkler lawn playground? I don't know the answer to that specifically. I would assume that they looked at all kinds of different facilities and what would work there. that would probably be the one that would work the best. I would assume a sort of a more uh a less developed park and more programmed for something like that. And then I had one, this is kind of me, but I we there were a lot of roads that were brought up. Could we have a map real quick just that shows the road numbers so we kind of have a concept? The road numbers. Sorry.

Yeah. Like 1640 south and 14 because this property 1640 is off screen here. I could go out. Um, could you do Google Maps or Yeah, let me do that one second.

I just think it would be helpful because the road system around there is squirly for lack of a [laughter] spent my life with teenagers. Okay. Um, and then because I know in the past there's been a lot of discussion about 16th and whether six and not connecting 16th but having 16th to come up. It's still very steep there to come up to the property above. So there's Yeah. So 1640 is here. Okay.

And Hidden Hollow. And then is this a from 16th? Again, lots of new commissioners, so I'm asking this question. 16th, there is a road that connects a couple of these houses at the south. That's a private Is that a road or a private drive there? Do you mean 400 West here? No, I mean on the top of the hill. Oh, u this here. Yeah. So 16th doesn't continue. It turns into 300. Correct. And that's private. I don't know if this is private or not. Is that private? Thank you.

Yeah. I'm just trying to set this like Like I said, I've dealt with a one second, Jay. We've I've dealt with a lot of the properties around here and so I just really like it is really confusing of how this all fits in. So I with the new commissioners, I just really want you all to be clear kind of how things are set up. So the only public road coming in really is 360 from the north and then 1600 south. Jay, did you want to speak to the roads briefly? I can call you forward if you want to if you want clarification on. Yeah, if you could. Yeah, cuz if someone knows these roads, it's you. Yeah.

Yeah. So, that private driveway, that's the one where the garbage cans are pulled up. Where's the road uh the gentleman was speaking about? Um where people come speeding through trying to get to the freeway. Yeah, it's what is it? 1600 South and 1640. And then the one up above the 1430, the Crispy Cream one. Yeah. What one? It's the very top up the screen. The very top. Yeah. Right above the green trees. That one. Is that one where it comes down to Sand Hill? Yeah. Big lot. Can you resay that for the bike?

Sorry, we have to have this recorded. So, 1450 South cuts in. Do you see the two acres that's empty? it comes tease into it. So that's where they're speeding and that's where all the kids are living. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So is Thank you. Any other question like Yeah. Thank you very much Jay for coming up and answering that question.

Yeah. Um, you had a question as far as finishing out the build and everything on the property and I just wanted to make sure we address that. Depending on which avenue we take, is it going to be prohibitive of of him being able to expand on his land if we you know what what what are the implications of that?

Sure. Let me So Mr. salmon's property. Um because the so anybody developing there in that area on in those lots that are above is probably going to be looking at flag lots of some kind. Mr. Salmon though um his property is only accessed from right here. So without the extension of that, it it would have to be some kind of flag lot to redevelop in here or develop additional lots.

Can I ask what is a flag lot? Sorry, good question. Sorry. So, the gentleman asked what a flag lot is. A flag lot is a lot that has limited access on the public rideway, a smaller access than normally is required, and then opens up in the rear, uh, shaped like a flag. Um, typically we don't do flag lots from dead ends or from culde-sacs. Um, so that's that that could be a challenge. So, his his options to develop his property right now are pretty limited. actually this um the subdivision that we're talking about doing would open up options better for him but or potentially sir sir this is the public meeting part is closed

well no you guys can't invite him up I my job I sir can you sit for just a second again no no no just sit right there I promise just sit right there yeah at this point if we want further comments and we can as a commission decide to open for public comment again, but we would need to open for public comment. So, if it's okay with the commissioners, are we good at reopening for public comment? Okay, then I will go ahead and [laughter] reopen for public comment and then you can come forward and please state your name again just sorry Steve Sammon um on the east side that red line on the city property the the last meeting we went to Becca with McGee and what's his first name?

Gary.

Gary. Gary with Gary McGee. I I thought it was pretty much established that the the city would give us access all the way along that east side with a private lane. I don't know if that's been communi communicated to the planning commission or not. Obviously, it seems like it hasn't. So that would be all the way down to Liy on the south end and us up on the So you can see the barn and we own the property south of the barn and and we would like to develop it eventually. So, I understand your comment about a culde-sac. And so, that's why I wanted to say we talked a lot in that meeting about a private lane um going on that east side all the way down with open access from the south and the north. Thank you.

Thank you. And because we need to be careful here because we No, you're fine. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm willing to have people come back up if they haven't said anything, but let's keep our comments short cuz And new. And new. Yes. Thank you for So, yeah. And restate your name because Nicole Van Orman. Um, we had uh if you see the the road come down right there. Okay. What is it called again? Um,

blinking. Well, it was we um Okay, so we had that approved where we could build and ours is also a flag lot. So, it comes onto that 2 acres, but that little piece was um approved through the city just to do a small road right there for our access. Thank you for the clarification. real quick back to the other side. So the private lane I'm Jayl D3 345 west 1600 South. So the private lane that runs across the top um yeah so that to me doesn't have any relation to whether you have a culde-sac or a through street there. So why couldn't you just cuz city said that they would approve that. So those lots down Yeah. Right there those lots down in there could be developed. So why couldn't you still approve that and let salmons and us and everybody else who has land there develop it whether or not that culde-sac goes in or not because it's not they don't tie to each other not related in any way and you could still maybe somehow that way get the sewer and water through.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public meeting now. Our reopened public meeting. We're going to close it now um and give the planning commission a little bit of time to talk about a few things. One question I do have about this clear from the satellite dirt dirt lane behind them that they have been using. At what point has an easement been created by this because it hasn't been stopped in the past. I'm going to refer you to the legal department for that. Yeah. And our legal department's missing.

Yeah. Yeah. But I think that that is a valid question that needs to be explored because there may already be I'm not saying that don't rely on anything I'm saying. This is a question for legal as to what might be going on there. There might be some more information needed. Um, Commissioner, yes. Just back to my original statement way back in we're we're not doing the platting on this property. The only motion before us is we can change it the zoning from EF to RA. Right. But I do think it is important to consider is it even plausible? Yeah.

But but I do agree and I was going to reemphasize that as well that that really for us in our conversation, should this be R8? Should we reszone this at R8? And we could we could just reszone atone R8 and say it's R8 and then see what comes along. Even if the city doesn't end up developing it, it would still be our aid or we leave it public facility and then it's undevelopable if we leave it. Well, if we make the recommendation to city council, city council has the final say to be very clear. And as you pointed out earlier in the conversation, parks are possible in R8 zoning.

Reszingon at Target does not preclude the possibility of a park. It creates the possibility of a residential single family subdivision. That's the way that city staff has looked at it so far. Fundamentally, the biggest difference is whether or not um whether or not if we turn it to R8, another developer could come in and develop it, buy it from the city and develop it. If we sold it, we sold it. Yeah. So, it kind of puts it still in this limbo place with the street. Oh, sorry, Darren. Yeah.

There too, but thank you, Jared. Could you um just explain to me again what is the problem? What's the what are the main problems the city is trying to solve by changing this to an R8?

That's a great question. So the the main kind of there are some benefits that the city sees in as an applicant in in creating an R8 lot or a property that's R8 zoned. So we could create lots on it. It does help us to better provide it's it's an easy way to provide sewer access that we've uh promised folks up here for a long time. Uh if we subdivide that property and it lets us put a sewer line in, makes it easy to do that. Sewer and water connections get better when they're looped. Uh it solves some access and sewer issues that uh exist for property to the north on Sunflower Dunes that was mentioned tonight uh as well. Um and it creates um it creates additional housing that the city wants. We want to see single family housing where we can uh see that happen. So this is an opportunity for us to to create that possibility as well as opposed to uh somebody trying to develop it in some other way. Uh it does have challenges because of the steep nature of the property. And then there's the the um my brain can only think buried treasure, the buried concrete and and things on the property. So far, uh, we're we're doing well in test pits and things, but there are challenges for for regular developers, for private developers that the city would be able to overcome more easily. So, our interest in doing it is to um in seeking the reszone is to be the best candidate at actually getting it developed as a single family detached subdivision that does those other things that we would like to see done. connect the sewer, uh, connect the water, make this possible,

that checks more boxes and satisfies more things that would be more beneficial to everybody. Boxes that private developers aren't interested in checking because they cost money, right?

And I wanted to add to this, this is a unique situation that I've not seen before where the residents are have different concerns. Typically, when residents come in for for concerns with the property, they're all united and they all say, "We're we stand this way for these reasons. This one's unique because you have kind of three different camps. Um, our job as a commission is as residents of ORM who are volunteers is to make 20 and 30year decisions uh that we all kind of have to live with sometimes. So, that's just the kind of the frame that we're kind of trying to to wrestle with. Rest assured.

Yeah. I want to make sure Jeff, do you have any questions? I just want to make sure you have an opportunity to [clears throat] ask if you do or comment. No, not yet. I just Yeah, I wanted to kind of understand Jared just communicated, you know, what city's motivation here is in this and to me uh that was very clearly stated. So, I'm good for now. Okay. Good. Okay. Public comments closed.

Public comments are closed right now. This is our discussion. [gasps and sighs] Yeah. Go ahead. I guess I just wanted to bring up a financial hate to speak to the elephant in the room, but putting in water and sewer is not cheap. And so in order to do that, I feel like part of the reason you're doing the lots is to help offset I believe it was $2 million. Yeah. I don't know. I don't I don't know the number, but was that the number that I saw somewhere in the paperwork? Maybe I just invented that. It's expensive. It It is expensive.

It's expensive. And so it's hard from a financial or fiscally responsible perspective to say, "Hey, yeah, let's go ahead and put water and sewer here without some compensatory offset of costs." So I see why the city is saying, "Okay, let's this is an opportunity to fill that need that we haven't been able to fill a long time. So, it benefits the neighbors, gives us more houses that we can put single families in and not hack a lot of cars, a lot of people into a small space. So, just some things to think about maybe as we're pondering. Thank you.

We're pondering. We clearly are. Britain, I think the park sounds reasonable. I I would love to dive into kind of if we did a more specialized park, you know, I see that that lot. What's the other um development that wasn't finished through Sunflower Dunes? Sunflower Dunes. Yeah, and then there was the other one that's that's just off of 16 Acadia. I wonder if there's some sort of hybrid that where that can get finished. Sun sunflower sunflower dunes sunflower dunes can get finished and then the remainder you know be looked at some you know maybe micro specialized you know niche park that's got clear defining outlines where is that concrete suspected to be I don't think anyone knows that's where we're digging test pits

I see well I don't think a bypass is going to care about buried concrete so those are I think those are my thoughts

okay and I'm going to bring it back a little bit to the discussion of R8 versus PF. Um PF is a holding zone that was created for city properties. It's a public facility. You know, uh we're sitting on a PF zoned property right now. There's actually a lot of things the city could do with it. Um I think if this property were a lot of other places, you have you'd look at it and you'd balance and say, "Okay, you know, we need houses. This is a great opportunity to put in, you know, a dozen or more. I can't count right the second dozen or so lots of oh 18 it's right there in front of me. Um 18 lots of more housing that is clearly needed that could be owner occupied and in theory owner occupied and and bring in homes at the same time. This is a very unique piece of property with a lot of real challenges. And I think I don't know for me tonight I think I still have questions I would like to know answers to that I don't know if we necessarily have the people here to be able to answer those. And that's kind of where I'm because like I said on one hand, yes, changing this to R8 would make a lot of sense in a lot of other circumstances. But given some of the nature of this property, but I really also want people to be able to develop the people who've already come through this process, who've had things said to be able to develop their property. I'm still concerned about those couple of lots to the east that are landlocked. Um, and and yes, that might be able to be addressed by being R8, but it's it's hard because they are separate issues. Do we want R8 here or do we not versus how is this going to develop versus not? But I think in sending questions back to the city and staff and city council as

they discuss this that I think there's still a lot of for me there's still a lot of open concerns and I think some of those are questions that maybe if we had other people here I probably just said the same thing twice, so I apologize if I did, but it made twice as much sense. It did. It was extra clear. Extra clear. Meline. Yes. Jeeoff. So, would you mind sharing what you believe are the open questions that you want the city to answer?

Um, I do have some concerns about access for the people to the east, um, and what's been going on there. Um, I think there is that's one of my big I would be really curious to understand kind of more of the park not park development thinking um on this particular piece of property. Um, those are two of my main concerns. I mean I think whether it's a through street or a culde-sac that's definitely next step as opposed to how to configure the land. Right now, we're trying to decide if we want R8 versus PF. Keep it a PF. Okay. Darren's first.

Oh, yeah. I know. Okay. Okay. Whichever. I I guess my question I would throw in with that is how long do you anticipate before you find out what the concrete asphalt issues are? Um because that's something I think we need an answer to because if it's not developable because of the amount of concrete asphalt that are there, this is a non-issue because it's not developable. Yeah. And I I I can't answer that either, but we can find out what their estimates would be from public works.

Yeah, Darren. Um, yeah, I appreciate that there's still a lot to figure out here, but I also have heard that R8 is a pretty flexible zoning change and that this will need to come back before us with not only through street culde-sac, but also apparently you could in an R8 leave a little bit of open space still. Isn't that right? Or a park or something allowable in in the R8, right? So, I guess I don't understand if it is so flexible what the costs are of changing it and letting the city come back later with more plans. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay.

Okay. May want to remind that if it stays PF, the city could put a sewage pressure treatment station on this particular piece of property or a water pressure treatment statement. Those are you you know so if we keep a PF you know there are maybe some items that could happen there that the residents wouldn't want anyway if we make it all right those options come off of the table just as a you know reality check on that. So

I'm not anti-thinking. We can sit here quietly and ponder. I I support this as well. you yes if you if you'd like to go to motion we can go to motion it it will people will still have an opportunity to speak if they want yeah give me like two more minutes to think I mean by by two more minutes I mean like 15 seconds can you change to this motion slide

I will speak slowly while Britain Wait hold on Wait, wait. Uh, in my 15 seconds, I think that I determined I think an object in motion stays in motion. I think I support somebody noted the importance of keeping our green space. I agree pretty strongly with that with that notion. Um, I think if we take a property and we put it in motion and changing its characteristics and changing its uh its personality too much or not even too much, just at all, I think that that opens up routes for uh risk that are irreversible in ways that I don't want to look in the eyes just yet.

Okay. Darren did make motion, so he gets to make his motion. Sorry, Darren. Would you please make your motion? I'm sorry and I I I understand completely. Right. I mean, I forgive you and I still love you. [laughter]

It does. It It breaks my heart to end green space, right? It really does. And um and I don't know, there's a part of me that's still hoping that part of this can be some kind of green space, but um uh it also feels like there's other counterveailing needs here. and trying to balance all those. I'm in kind of a similar place, right? I'm not sure what to do, but it feels like the R8 still gives us options and that we've still got a long road to go here. Um, though I understand the comment that you just made. Anyway, uh I move that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request to amend article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the city of Orum by changing the zone of the property located generally at 360 West 1500 South from PF public facilities and R12 single family residential to R8 single family residential approximately 4.45 acres.

Okay. And so Darren has motioned that we forward a recommendation of approval. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. So Darren move and Carl seconded that for uh motion for approval. Do either one of you want to say anything more on this topic. Technically Darren gets to go first if he wants to say anything else. I said my preamble before the motion. Thank you for giving me a chance though. Carl.

Um no. Again, you know, what's being considered here is just not what the plat looks like, not what the access looks like. That's something a discussion that should come up later and should be given some weight. This is just changing it from PF to R8 and then those items can be discussed. And again, this is going this is our appro this is our motion to the city council who will then make a final decision on that. So that's that's all I have to say. Okay. Um, Jeeoff, do you want to say anything?

Um, no. I think it's all been said. Again, just to re reiterate, we're just approving the zone change and and then there's a lot to work to do and I think all all neighbors interest can be can can be considered um with city council and then when it comes time to actually doing any kind of of platting. So, that's why this to me makes the most sense. Okay. Britain, do you want to say anything?

I just I I think a continuation would make a lot of sense. It's just it doesn't undo the possibility of turning into a an RA in two weeks. We can have some of those questions answered. Um and we can still readress this, you know, before we have to buy a new container of toilet paper. And at this point that would require asking for a motion to reconsider. So, but just just so you're aware of what the Yeah. vote for

No, it would need to be now. I'd like to make a motion for us to reconsider for the sake of just having a couple more weeks to consider. Continuation. Well, we're it's a motion to reconsider. This is where I wish Gary was here. So, it it's saying that we've got a motion on the table and so we either vote or you can amend it or we can we can reconsider.

Yeah, I'm I'm still I'm totally open to the RA. I'm to I I like the fact it makes sense we still can have the green space. We've done this with other uh developments uh near the cemetery. Um, I just think let's get some of those questions answered first. Okay. I mean, do I need to second his How does that work? Yes, you somebody has to second it. Okay, I'm going to second Britain's. So, you Yes. So, Susan seconded it to just reconsider. [gasps] I'm racking my So, now do you need to vote on the Now we need a motion to reconsider. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what I was just thinking, but I my brain was just double-checking and again I'm allowed to think. Um, okay. So, so then for just to be clear, then my understanding would be you vote on the motion to reconsider and if the motion to reconsider fails, you're back to your motion. Yeah, because it's like parenthesis and so we're on to this parenthesis for the motion to reconsider. So, um, I'll begin at the other end. Carl N. Nay. I I I um Jeff Nay. Okay. It was four to three. So, okay.

So, the motion to reconsider carries. You can do new motion or whatever cuz we have weird rules about how many things have to be yes when it's certain things. This is more complicated than it seems. So, motion to reconsider. So, I then propose a new motion. Yes. I motion that we continue this topic to um not the next meeting, the meeting after. So June 3rd. June. June 3rd. Okay. Do I have a second?

Second. Okay. Britain moved and Susan seconded that we continue this item to June 3rd. So, unless anyone has any comments they want to make on this motion, we can just go to vote. Okay, we'll go to vote. I'll start with Jeff this time. I Britain I I Susan I I I Okay, that is 6 to1 for continuation to June 3rd. Okay, thanks. I'll get some information together and we'll we'll uh put in your report.

Can we like Can we get parks to come and like hang out with us for the work session? Does anybody have Ronson's number and legal legal? We'll get all the cool kids going. Thank you for all of those who came to speak on this item. And just a reminder guys, we are continuing with other items. If you could act quietly, that'd be great. Three more items. It's awesome. Men Britain, that's my job. Oh, okay. I I do have a gavvel and I will use it if it becomes necessary. Wait on me. [laughter]

Yes, I can call you to order. Okay. So, we're going to move on to item 5.3, which is a text amendment for fun city. is a request to amend the text of article 22-11-17B of the ORM city code by including standard land use number 7424 recreation centers as permitted use in the PD5 zone. And I'm going to also politely ask if you would like to speak to your friends and neighbors to please go out into the lobby because we really do still have three more items and it's almost 7:00. Can I clarify? Is this 5.2 or 5.3? Did I say 5.2? I'm at 5 point I'm at 5.2. Did I say 5.3? I apologize.

Um, are you okay if I actually close those doors real quick? They're unlocked, but Okay. Do you want me to read 5.2 back in? [gasps] So, I'm sorry. It's item 5.2. Yay. Which is a text amendment. And it looks like Rebecca is going to be doing the presentation. I'm so excited. Yes, I am shaking in my boots. You

got this. [laughter] I um Okay. So, Oh, all right. Um so, this uh request is a text amendment to add SLU4, sorry, 7424 recreation center general into the PD5 zone. Um I thought it would kind of be good to do a quick run through of the zone. It's mostly kind of a rehash of the staff report, but I wanted to give you guys kind of a quick spark notes on this. Um, so just as a reminder, um, our PD5 zone has been around, as far as I can tell, since as in some form as early as the 1990s. Um, it is primarily located around along 1300 University Parkway. um in this area. It is a locationspecific zone. So, this is the only area in our town that it shows up in. Um it currently overlaps with the regional and commercial zone um general plan um zoning area. Um and it also abuts a variety of other zones. Um so, we've got residential, highway services, commercial um other PD zones that are also uh kind of retail serviceoriented. Um, and we've got a few public facil facility p Oh my goodness. public facility zone pockets that show up. Um, primarily where we have a little school here, little um, other pieces just kind of scattered around. [snorts] Um, the purpose of the PD5 at this time, as described in the text, I understand some of this is no longer super relevant. Um you'll notice it references the master plan um which has since gone the way of the ghost. Um but uh primarily it was to provide locations along the 1300 south corridor corridor with um planned development opportunities to allow the

enlargement of the commercial retail um service center development um while still being able to protect adjacent residential uses. Um, for any of you who are familiar, we've seen this manifest often in the form of making sure there's an alleyway or a large wall um between them and residential. Um, it's also kind of supposed to support uh flexibility of the designs. Um, and then of course four and five kind of rehash that out in different terms. Um, wanting to support different architectural, landscaping, urban design principles, etc. [snorts] Um the primary way that the PD zone does this is through creating a very specific use of um list of uses that are allowed in the PD zone itself. If you're not listed directly in this list, you cannot have that type of business there. Um I did kind of add in a little bit of clarity. You'll see some sections that say like 161 or sorry 61XX and then at the bottom it says refer to appendex A for a complete category listing. Um I did provide you guys with some uh packets that have that humongo appendix A list. Um, so anything in that area that starts with 61 and then ends in whichever numbers would be allowed as um stated in this code. So like the 61XX, some examples are banking and credit services, check and cashing services, 53XX, some examples arts, crafts, hobbies, department stores. Um, this list was most recently updated in 2019 to include gymnasiums and athletic clubs and health spas. Um, if I remember correctly, the origin of that was allowing the EOS to go right next to the Ashley's. Um, so that's where that kind

of originated. Um, so that kind of brings us Sorry, any questions at this point? Okay. Um, so that kind of brings us to the source of the text amendment itself. Um, Bun City requested to um, pull a building permit at the existing Jo-Ann's um, to do a trampoline park inside of it. Um, I had the not so happy opportunity of telling them, "No, you cannot do that." Um because due to their uh their building plans, their classification, yes, they had a trampoline park in them, but they also uh have party rooms, zip lines, an indoor playground, um which we uh consider that and um came to the conclusion that a a recre recreation center kind of general um designation would be more applicable to them. Um the next closest one was amusement park which clearly does not fit here. Um as a result of that they requested to have recreation centers for 7 um sorry 7424 included in the PD5 zone. Um and that's how we've gotten to this point. Um so yeah any questions about that?

Any questions at this point? Yeah. Can you define a recreation center what that actually means? Yeah. Um I actually do not this is the great pitfall of our appendix. Um our appendix does not have a definition um expressly laid out. So, we are aware that this request could open the door for um any anything that could fit enough into that category as a business license use um to attempt to go into a a building located in the PD5 zone.

Do I have a question, Jeff, if you had if you didn't have a follow-up question? um really just want to understand then how you would differentiate between recreation center and an amusement park for example like where's that boundary I I don't know that either's I mean yeah I don't have a bias at center but just want to understand what it is that we're allowing to be in that zone if I don't understand that it's hard to make a decision about whether it's appropriate or not yeah my question can be can be an indent on that question is do we know what Provo Beach Resort is classified as?

I I have no idea what um the Provo Beach I believe that's not in our zone. You don't know the zonings of other comparable. Yeah, it kind of makes sense. It's a comparable thing that is not a blemish I don't think on that development, right? Or on the city. And so if that's [snorts] what that means, then we you know that's important for us to understand. Yeah. Yeah. And it's al the wider question because this doesn't apply just to the former Jo-Ann's. It applies to the whole PD zone. So that includes as you saw a lot of that side of University Parkway and the other side. So um

well I have a question that's along the same line of there. I was going to say yeah because that's part of my question too. Aren't there general definitions for these or do they not exist? And that's just yeah to kind of answer the question and then uh Carl. Yeah. So like the roller skating rink, was that a recreation center? Okay. Yes, that was question. Except I think roller rinks are actually listed on their own. They Yeah.

The um if if I may, the the wonderful horrendous thing about our appendix um is while a lot of other cities kind of leave them more open as general categories, um our appendix has a very specific callout list. Um, that's why unfortunately that is about I think it's like 60 pages long and I got each one down to 10 pages using front and back. Um, so when people come through applying for a business license or a building permit and we're trying to match a use to um to a license and to what's going into that building, we have to look at that code um and and see sometimes it's really neatly like called out. Um I've had things where it's like green compost is specifically called out and all these different uses. Somebody was clearly thinking about them at one point. Um, but then we have things like a a trampoline park that they don't quite fit into a gymnasium and athletic club because of all these there's an arcade in it and everything.

Um, so we're kind of left looking at what's what's left over. It is reassuring if you look into the like 72 73 7400s they do have other descriptions that would eliminate the possibilities of other things. So for example, writing stables, right? So if we do classify them into that one, then that does exclude all the ones that are pre-classified. That's my understanding. Is that correct? Yes. And just for um quick note on how to read this, N's mean it's not allowed, C is conditional, and P is permitted. So as opposed to a Y for yes, it's P for permitted. Yeah.

Just just to keep that in mind as you're scanning this long. But this will be good because we've needed this for other Yeah, we've needed this for a few other things. It will be relevant for the for the next item, too. So, what do they So, what's the item that they're they want gym gymnasiums and athletic clubs? Um, they had originally petitioned to pull their building permit as a as a gymnasium, athletic club. Um but we had determined that because of the the amusement entertainment um things that were included in their building plans um that it would not fit in that category. Um but there's no there's no clear defining determination. No. So that's just Yeah. The only thing is historically that's one way to interpret it.

Yeah. Um [clears throat] historically we have used it for our vases for our EOS. Um, so when it kind of shows up in the business license system, there's there's a kind of an almost an ideological precedent. Um, but not a flatout definition. I I'm going to step in and ask a really quick question because I think we need to because it's the standard land use code. Who's standard land use code? Where do these codes come from? And that's I was kind of trying to ask this a little bit earlier, but specifically, could you speak to what we're looking at here? Um, give the short history. Yes. [laughter]

Okay. Um, so standard land use codes were standard, for lack of a better word, a long a long time ago. Several cities are still using SLU codes. I'm not sure where they originated. They've been pilfered and cobbled together from some source for a long time from the ' 50s. I've seen some I won't repeat what the codes are, what their descriptions are, but suffice to say that they are no longer relevant or okay to say. Um, that's how old some of these are. There are not a lot of cities still using them and most have gone to a more open system where your where your interpretation is it's easier to make an interpretation to make things fit because the boxes are just broader. Yeah.

Ours ours has this annoying extra layer too where everything that's not listed in some standard land use codes in the three or four cities that are still using them, it'll have a catch-all and say, "Hey, other other um gymnasium or other recreation NEC, not elsewhere classified." Ours does that too and then it prohibits all of those leading us to believe that we need to make it fit or or amend our list. Um, so where we are able to, we we try to interpret as broadly as we can and bring things into categories that already exist as opposed to creating new categories all the time and adding to the monstrosity that is the standard land use code. Um, but in some cases like in this case for example like Becca I said we for gymnasiums and and athletic clubs we've limited that to yoga studios and fasa and neos that kind of thing and uh this is more of a recreation and amusement kind of facility. So we we want to add that and we have a category for that. So we apply

it would make sense to me if it was based on like the percentage of the of the structure. Yeah. And that would require some sort of some sort of language in the in the land use list. What we what we rely on is our interpretation and then our our administrative determination can be appealed. Like if we if we just said no and they didn't want to try to add it to the list, they could appeal our determination and say well we think we are a gymnasium. And then we would take that to the ALJ and have them determine if we were wrong or not. So essentially it's a Gary question. Yeah, to some extent. It's it's an old it's an old method of doing it. Most most codes have moved on. We're considering moving on. It's a big change. Um so we haven't pulled the trigger back.

But so just to clarify and then I would love to hear um just to clarify. So basically you went through that set of that list and you said what's the closest thing to this and that was this doing this doing recreational general. Okay, Rebecca.

Um and I and I know it's like oh what what did they pick? I do have an email exchange with them in which they they told me totally like unprompted um that they strongly believe that they fit into an indoor recreational use which I don't have an indoor recreational but I do have a rec a recreational general. Um so using what they had proposed in their email um we were that was the closest thing we could

Yeah. I was going to ask is the applicant here because we have not given the applicant an opportunity to speak and I think that might help kind of some of this discussion. So I if the applicant would like to come forward my name is Kenny Styles. I'm actually a representative of the property owner. A representative of the applicant is here as well from Fun City. So if you would like to specifically talk to her that'd be great. She has asked for me to represent the applicant though if that's okay. That's totally fine. Okay. Yeah. Great. Did you have specific questions for me at this time or

I think some of the questions is what is the intent of the facility? What's going to be in it? So we can kind of say does this code fit or we want to adopt this code? Absolutely. So, um I think recommendation,

uh you know, you brought up, uh some perfect examples of how I think the city here recently has, um done some good things in terms of uh adopting gyms and health clubs into this uh zoning code. Um 1990 was a long time ago in the retail world and uh and we're seeing retail evolve all the time. So just to give you some background, my company owns and manages about 2.4 million square feet in Utah. Uh we own in other states as well. And in ORM alone, we own Family Center in ORM, University Crossing, and ORM Plaza. So a little over a half a million square feet. So we're very invested in ORM. We've been a part through certain different partnerships in those properties for more than 10 years. Um, as you guys know who've been here a long time, family centered dorm has changed a lot. Uh, especially since we bought it originally 10 years ago. Um, tenants that take 40,000 ft don't hardly exist anymore. And the tenants that do are typically this type of use. And what we see and what we have experienced from other you know more typical retail tenants such as in this property second Charles Ashley Furniture Michaels is that they are very supportive of this use whereas 15 20 years ago just like with gyms those uses were always prohibited by those tenants but what they have experienced is the cross shopping the complimentary uses uh Michael's um actually had it was an older lease and it had a prohibition against this type of use. We had to go to Michaels to ask them for approval and they approved it right away and they said they they love it. Actually, since their use has changed with the loss of

um Joanne and Party City, they do a lot more party business. So, they love the opportunity to where Fun City will be having birthday parties and there will be a lot of cross shopping there. So, our neighboring co-enants are very supportive of this. Um, [clears throat] as far as the use is concerned, I I did have a couple of questions because I know these are different zones, but very nearby in the PD34 zone, you've got the Rush Funlex at University Place Mall, which I believe is a very similar type use, and then um the Hang Time uh gym. Um, and that is, I believe, HS.

Yeah, that's highway services. Highway services. Yeah. So, I didn't know if those if you knew what categories those uh uses were approved under. That is an excellent question. Um, so the Hang Time is listed as an amusement park. Um, and then the Rush Funplex is um has its license pulled as an arcade. Good. Okay. Okay. No. Could you speak a little more as to what the what would be going in in the fund city like? Yes. Yes. Just so we kind of have an idea of what kind of things we're talking about. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Leon. Um for the fun city most of these parks around the US um we have the trampolines, the foam pits and like diving boards, playground ball pits and as well as the ropes course as a and wall climb area and the party rooms usually are open um rooftop. So it's just open uh ceilings so there's not really enclosed Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. Did you have any other question for me? Do any of you?

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant directly right now? Okay. All right. All right. Then this is technically a public hearing. So I will use this as an opportunity to open for public comment on this addition for the land use. Same rules apply before 3 minutes and state your name at when you come up. Um I know you have the one to read in.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So, go ahead, Grace. Okay, I do have one to read in. It's similar to what uh Kenny Styles was saying here, but I'll officially read this letter. Um, let's see. This is from I have here Orm Family Center LLC, an affiliate of Community Development Real Estate LLC. Um, dear honorable chair and planning commissioners, as the owners of the property at the family center at ORM on East University Parkway, we support the applicants fund city request for the text amendment to allow for the proposed recreational use at the 40,35 ft tenant space located at 172 East University Parkway. We own and manage more than 2,400,000 square ft of commercial property throughout Utah, including approximately 525,000 square ft in ORM between Family Center at ORM University Crossing and Orm Center State Plaza. Over the last few decades, the nature of brick and mortar commerce has evolved significantly. The market for traditional retail uses has changed with customers seeking a variety of experiential and service uses at both neighborhood and regional shopping centers. This has provided challenges for communities who desire these new uses such as Fun City, an indoor recreational and family entertainment facility which are unfortunately not contemplated or permitted by the current zoning codes. Here, [snorts] the proposed fund city facility would create one new tenant space out of two existing ones formerly occupied by lumber liquidators and Jo-Ann's, each of which filed for bankruptcy and closed. Specifically, Fun City would provide a year-round indoor trampoline park containing foam pits, climbing elements, and obstacle ninja courses to serve both children and adults. This kind of new use offers a healthy environment for

active physical recreation and delivers a communityoriented alternative to pervasive social media engagement. Moreover, this use is viewed by the shopping cent's tenants, including Michaels, as complimentary to their businesses and will enhance the cent's overall desiraability. Additionally, Fund City will have a direct impact on the local economy as it anticipates employing 30 to 50 people and generating approximately 2 million in annual revenue. We have seen similar facilities succeed in nearby communities in other retail shopping centers we own such as the Van Winkle Shopping Center in Murray, Utah, Fun City, the former Dan Market at 33rd and 23rd in Mil Creek, Utah, Slick City, and Fort Union shopping center in Midvale, Utah, Urban Air. Permitting a familyoriented business to replace a vacant and large commercial space advances the city's economic goals and will fulfill a market demand. We urge the commission to approve the applicant's reasonable request for the text amendment which will not only meet an identified need in the current market but will but also provide economic benefits to the community. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to our continued investment in the city of Oram. Sincerely, Steven Uan. I hope I said that correctly.

I have some questions. Thank you. But we're still in public comments. Oh, great.

Yeah. So if if nobody else would like to come forward and speak on this issue, would you like to? Absolutely. Good evening. I'm Marian Baxter. I live at 325 West 1600 South in Oram. So I'm not far from the area that this is being um being considered the conversion of the property. And I really appreciate I actually came for I was I arrived late but I was listening. Thank you for broadcasting and um I appreciate that this opportunity is coming up before you as the planning commission and your recommendation that will go on to the city council because that empty commercial space the whole landscape is changing of how properties are used, how they're managed, what they're developed into. And this looks like a good fit. There's ample parking. There's excellent um access um right off of, you know, to the to the east. There's access directly into the parking lot. There's other services available in this facil in this facility and on this property for food and different things that I I don't perceive a conflict. And we have lived in Southwest Storm for over 42 years. and in Southwest Orm particularly. And so, thank you for the opportunity to give some positive feedback on a conversion like this. I think it will fit very well and service all of the city of ORM and even be a draw because we don't have this entity in Utah County. And so it may actually become somewhat of a Utah Valley draw for what can accomplish and

I hope it would be managed well and maintain that. So thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public comment at this time. Britain really has something to say. [laughter] Follow questions on the uh owner representative. Uh is that uh is this property owner managed or is there a third party management company?

There's third party property management company. So we do what we would consider to be all of the asset management. So anything to do with uh really the the the leasing side of it. So we we uh we use local brokerage here, New Mark Mountain West, uh to identify uh potential tenants and then we handle all of the contract side of everything. Uh the physical property management of the property is third party managed. Who's that? Uh it is Collers. Yeah. And just to be clear, we only own we do not own the EOS and Ashley Fitness box or um the the the PATs.

I see. Y that's it. Thanks. And then I had another question for the applicant specifically with the layout of this. Uh how far into the mapping and the layout of the of the facility are you? Oh, I I don't think I'm able to answer that question. I apologize, Kenny. Yeah, I I just want to know it's it's geared towards children and adults. I know like the American Ninja Warrior thing is really big. like how far are we leaning kids versus adults? Kind of the middle ground.

Yes, you can take that. So, you're asking clarify. Okay. So, it's usually mostly leaning towards kids. Um adults can participate in some of the activities that we do offer such as, you know, the trampolines, nature course, and wall climbing obstacles. Great. Thanks. That's it for me. Yeah. Rebecca, is that response to this? Um, yes. I I didn't include them because I didn't know if it was appropriate, but I do have the building permit plans that show the layout. I don't know. I didn't include it cuz I don't know if that's pertinent to the text amendment itself, but in case you're curious.

Okay, Susan, kind of a comment over on this. Are we good? Yeah, we're good. So, a couple thoughts. one is this is um the standard land use might be a great thing that we review in the future. Yeah,

because it obviously has some glaring holes in. My second thought when I first reviewed this is I think it's a great use of all this empty retail space. I don't see a downside to it to be really honest because there's so much that sits vacant. And I love that we're doing this cross business, you know, reaching out and trying to make that work. And as far as I'm concerned, it's like an athletic club for kids [laughter] because it really is. You go to an adult athletic club and they're doing whatever they want to do and then they're hanging around in the smoothie bar and they're, you know what I mean? So, it's it there's not a whole lot that differs from perspective on that for me. I think the adult one should have arcades, too.

That would be more fun. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at is on the one road that connects UVU and BYU with 30,000 absolutely young single adults and UVX. and UVX. I would I would hope that it would lean it would definitely have a large child center, but I I would hope that it would have a significant uh includability in in adults.

Yeah. And I think like for me um I think there's like this is great. This is what we need. We need more of this in ORM. We need the real question is just what's the appropriate category? And that's going to be a little bit of the I guess back and forth. Any other comments or questions at this time? Okay. So, bringing it back our Jeff, did you have anything? No.

Okay. So, bringing it back to what's before us is that do we want to forward a recommendation for adding 7424 recreation centers general to the plan or is there another designation? Is it because it seems like it's wide open in whatever we want it to be, but then it leaves it wide open like I mean is it [laughter] Yeah. It's like what's the Yeah. Yeah. What's the heavier lift? Is it including it into this or is it adding its own listing? Does that make sense?

I have I have an opinion about that. If they have an opin I I think the the salient point is that it the was made already earlier a lot of specific things are listed and since they're listed specifically then they might be components of something like this but that would have to be they'd have to be listed. So it's not it's it's a broad category but the the specific ones that are listed um you know they they kind of narrow it to to this kind of a facility. We have facilities for we have, for example, a an axe throwing category. We have a I think we I think we shied away from creating a smash room category and just said that's like axe throwing. We're just leaving it. It's close enough.

But yeah, so there are some it's not so broad that that to be concerning in my view. Okay. So, like I said, I think it comes down to that if we think this is the right category, then we forward a positive recommendation to city council because I think I mean in and of itself, this is great. I think this is wonderful. Yeah. So, further discussion and or motion are all acceptable at this point. Yeah. And turn your mic on. So, I guess my question would be, sorry, would there be a reason we wouldn't want

to move forward? If we change this to include that, what does that open the door to? And I think that's a fair question. Recreation centers in general, does that mean they're going to try to put a mini lagoon somewhere? I think that's the amusement park. That would amusement park [laughter] for and just see what happens. But I'm just wondering what could go in if we change this to that assuming it's not successful. I think it will be wildly successful. I'm going to give my opinion first. Yes.

I think I think the truth is recreation centers is actually still narrow enough that I think you're talking trampoline parks, those kinds of those kind of things. American Ninja course for young adults if anyone's listening. Um, no, but like I think it's narrow enough. I think if we said amusement park, I think it could in theory open up for a broader thing. I think it's interesting that we have that in the HS. [clears throat] Ranges is listed separately. Oh, okay. Um, Rebecca's going to say something and then Jeff

I I do I just kind of as a quick little fun fact. Um, business licensing used to not be in our department at all. So, it used to be not planners that were determining what a use was. Um, so when Hangtime got its license as an amusement park, that was not a decision made by planning and that is why it's in planning now. Um, so just to answer that curiosity. [laughter] Cool. Jeff. Yes. So, just wanted to confirm that by just specifically mentioning recreation centers, we're avoiding the amusement park problem, right? So, yes. Do I have that right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Then, yeah. So, okay. Carl, you wanted to make a motion like four minutes ago. I I'm patient. I'm patient. Thank you for your patience. I move that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request to amend article 22-11-17B of the ORM city code by including the standard land use number 7424 recreation centers general as a permitted use in the PD5 zone. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second.

Okay. Carl moved and Daryl seconded that we forward a positive re uh an approval recommendation of approval to city council for this land use designation. Okay, we'll go to vote written. I I I I Jeff I Hey, that motion passes. It will go to city council from here. Thank you. [gasps and sighs]

All right. Item 5.3 this time for real. It is a text amendment for the mini mustacherie. It's a request to amend appendix A of the ORM city code by including standard land use number 6231 barber shops and standard land use 6232 tattoo and body piercing as permitted uses in the M2 manufacturing zone. Rebecca, are you doing this one as well?

Yes. I I feel like it's it's hard to elaborate on this more than the description. Um but also maybe just to kind of run through it. Um just as you said, it is a request to add beauty and barber shops and the tattoo and body piercings um as uses in the M2 zone. Um, just as a quick run through, um, the M2 zone is currently primarily located west of the I-15 or kind of up in that northwest ORM pocket. Um, but it should be important to note that location is not a requirement of the zone. Um, so at any time anybody anywhere could potentially request to be an M2 zone anywhere. Um, so it's it's different from our PD zones in that regard. Um the M2 zone uh is per its definition um intended to provide areas where heavy intest intensity industrial activities can be used and developed. Um but curiously, the appendix actually does allow for a variety of not just manufacturing and industrial uses in the M2 zone, but also most um retail and wholesale who wholesale trades. Um and a lot of um 6x service uses. Um so the appendix that you have in front of you um does kind of that that quick run through the um amendment itself. um was requested because the applicant owns um a building in the M2 zone and would like to confront convert the retail front of it into um a barber shop that has of course barber chairs and um some tattoo services. Um the reason why we have not we but why he has requested both uses um is because our code specifically only allows tattoo and body piercing as an

incidental use to the barber shop and beauty shop. Um so you can't have tattoos without first having the the beauty barber shop. Um so that is why it both uses have been requested. Um were there any questions about that? So can I Okay. Yeah. Um tattooing would consider would also be considered like eyebrow tattooing those kinds of things which are considered more of a beauty shop function today than you know other other tattooing. So it's kind of a blended

situation from my understanding. So I just want to make sure that that was included in both of us. So it isn't just inherent in a beauty salon then. Yeah. Often times yes. [clears throat] Um anything else? Anything else for Seth? Okay. I what um I personally see like massage therapy places everywhere. I wonder what does a city have in terms of like governing volume of like one concentrated business?

Um I am not aware of anything that we have right now that specifically governs those kinds of things. I know we do see um like area limits show up in the instance of if you're going to have like a sober living home or um a place that sells liquor, they obviously they they cannot be within a certain range of each other. Um and same for some of our elderly care facilities. They have limits on how close they can be to some other things. Um but the tattoos and body piercings currently do not have that kind of a a limit. neither distance or um sheer numbers.

Okay. I think my only concern is is if we expand this to such a significant um land use category such as M2 is M2. Yes, M2. Um I think we would see a a huge influx of um self operators that may not govern themselves as well as maybe the applicant currently does. Right? we we may be opening the threshold for a lower standard of operator.

Okay. Yeah. Um the normally um how do how do I try to word this? because I I um whenever we have and I don't know if this plays into into the con concern if it answers or assuages or maybe uh certifies it right but um whenever we have somebody who comes in and and applies for a for a tattoo license we we put them through the whole business license application and that will also include um they have to turn in their doppel licenses they have to turn in their state registration Um, they also have to get clearance for the beauty and barber shop part as well. Um, and then they they're also open to building inspections. We will not give you your license until we've had building inspectors inside that building. Um, and I I do have a little bit about building occupation codes if if that's something you'd like to hear, too. Go ahead.

Okay. Um, so kind of going along with with that concern, could a could a random barber shop or tattoo shop just show up anywhere? Um, like this warehouse randomly, could I just walk in and say, "I'm going to start cutting hair here." Now, um, the answer is pretty much no. Even if we approve the use um what ends up happening is um warehouses do have a different building occupancy uh classification than a retail center itself. Um when they apply for that business license um changing the uses that that initiates that occupancy change. Um, so that means our inspectors go in be before that license is issued and they look for things that are suitable for occupancy B, which generally is more exits, more um like ADA accessibility. Um, that makes us look at parking. Um, a warehouse can have one parking stall for every 7 uh50 ft, but if you're going to use it as retail, we're now interested as um one parking stall for every 250. Um, so there'll be a little bit more of um some higher codes that kick in um as part of that use change if they choose to convert uh a a generally M2 storage warehouse into into this type of a use.

That's it for me. Thanks.

Okay. Okay. If there is there anything specifically for Steph could you bring up that map again of the I just want to see where like M2 so like C C1 and C2 could have tattoo parlors. Is that correct? And C2 is kind of like that red corridor going down you. So that's right in the middle of town. We already allow that there just for for consideration. Whereas this is clear on the industrial side where there's less tra and teenagers and less traffic than that area than there is in the red zone. So, you know, just as if you're putting it in perspective, I think we need to consider that.

I I think that's reasonable. I think it's also important to consider the underdevelopment of that area. Uh I think it's I think there's a lot of lacking infrastructure down there. uh and with lacking infrastructure comes lacking of um kind of community support. I think if if if data analysis of of demographics um um activities increase or decline in that area, I think we're reactive in responding to those. And that's in more words or less that's saying, do tattoo places bring more crime? Right? If we're taking it back to a 1950s kind of perspective, if that is true, and I don't know the numbers on that, then I I I don't think we're prepared for for that area as undeveloped as it is.

Fair. Can we um actually pause our conversation and let the applicant speak for a few minutes if because I think it would probably fill in some of this as to what exactly is desired in this location and what has already been there. So if the applicant would like to come forward, thank you for your patience. You've been monumentally patient.

Equin Taylor. Um so we've owned the building there for probably close to 35 years. Um, we ran Tailor Made Beauty Supply out of the warehouse when we had 20 stores and we've sold most of those stores and uh, I've opened up kind of the men's concept and um, I have a current barber shop in Murray that the mall is basically leased the the space out from underneath me. And so I'm right now I've been kicking around this idea for a couple years and I'm kind of forced into it now because I don't have a a landing spot for my barbers or my my store which you know makes me you know close to 300,000 a year. So um I I would like to bring that tax revenue back to Oram. That would be nice. And and honestly the idea is that um there's been a lot of warehouse building in the area. There's a lot of guys down there and so, you know, a guy that can go get a haircut at his lunchtime or go and, you know, as opposed to kicking around, you know, some field during lunch can come and sit in the barber shop and and talk and and do whatever. That that's kind of the the vibe that I'm trying to create. And then we're still going to manufacture our our beauty products and our our men's lines, you know, in the warehouse as well. So, it's going to be a mixeduse type of a facility for us anyway. Um, but I'm hoping to be able to, you know, be, you know, have five or six more guys that I can, you know, give a job to and and and all of that. So, that's kind of the main idea behind it. Like I I don't have tattoos. I'm not a tattoo guy, but that was, you know, when we had initially discussed it, we were like, you know, cuz there is uh, you know, guys that get the tattoos for their hairlines, and I'm like, I have so much space there. I'm like, I might as well add the use in case we want to use it. And we can kind of go from there. Yeah. And

can I respond now or I have to wait? Okay. Um and I totally agree and my comment initially was based off of previous experiences. I was asking the other gentleman about management cuz that's my background is is uh third party property management and the the tenants that we worked with who brought tattoo places and they were exclusively tattoo, right? So it is different from what you're doing. Uh, and the complaints just rolled in the day they moved in and it was a headache from then on in. You know, everything from crime to noise to, you know, loitering. I mean, it was just it was so frustrating. Um, I recognize how how your business in your proposal is different from that. Um, and like I said earlier, we have to think really broadly on a 20 30 year scale for the entire city. Um, and so that's not anything against like this specific plan. I think this specific plan sounds dope. That sounds great. So, that's just that's the frame that I'm bringing this into and that's the perspective that I have to to bring to the table here.

Yeah. My question goes back to what percentage of your business do you think the tattooing would be? Because we do have the one. So, so right now and so that's why I was just

so so right now I would have a one chair, you know, that's kind of the idea is I have one room that I already have cuz I'm like I could throw in a a tattoo chair there. I've got a nephew that does tattoos. like I could come down a couple days a week and you know my client cuz he drives all the way up to Salt Lake to do tattoos and he's like I I've got a lot of Utah County clients that have to follow me up to Salt Lake. I could just do them there. I'm like sure. So like I said, like we had said, it's kind of an incidental use with the barber shop. Barber shop's my main thing. Like that's kind of what I do. And then I do a lot of the men's grooming. I'm trying to make it, you know, we're going to be doing custom hats and things like that. So, it's, you know, it's going to be hopefully more of like a, you know, chill, laid-back hangout for for guys in the area to kind of come and visit. So,

I only asked cuz we have the other 15% one, and so I just was trying to understand like it's hard to I don't have tattoo in any of my other stores. I've never done it, so I have no idea. [laughter] Okay. Thank you. Hey, any questions for the applicant? Jeff, any questions? No. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Rebecca, do you have Sorry, you were just changing the slide. Sorry. [laughter and gasps] Okay, so discussion comments.

Oh, yes, we do. Sorry. Thank you for that. Yes, I do. Thank you for the reminder. We do need to open this up for public comment. And so if you could please come forward, state your name, and limit it to 3 minutes. But we appreciate you commenting cuz this is like city. Some of this is citywide and we don't always get pe we don't always get our community in here to Exactly. Express. So I appreciate it. I still am Marian Backre [laughter]

from 325 West 1600 South. Um just a technical issue in this setting. This is the one of the first times I've been in the city council new setting. It is I can hear the these mics. Meline, I can't hear you. Okay. And and it's not just Meline. It seems to be the commission mics aren't really coming up. And I don't know if that's handled in on site. So I know this isn't directly to your thing quite yet, but I wanted to make sure. Is that an issue? Closer doesn't always help. Yeah, they're making sure.

I'm just telling you from the back of the room and maybe Darren, I can I'm like, okay. Do they know this? Oops. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, okay. The mic's up, too. We We haven't had them very high. Do you have control? Maybe. We don't personally, but Okay. We do have some control.

I'll send a note next time I'm here. Um, this is a really interesting project coming up and and I actually I'm not a person for tattoos, but permanent makeup for men and women and hairlines and all that is is really a valid occupation. And I'm saying Oram has been um I think this has a need in Oram and it would fill um an interest and the setting I think really makes sense. It's a great multi-use combination and I think because if I understood correctly the the applicant the owner would be on site and very to closely tied to the success of a multi-use integration that it wouldn't descend into the misuse of that type of project going forward or process or business going forward. So I think it's really interesting and I it's really kind of fun to see the inner workings on the community level. I through the years of living in ORM I have appreciated the opportunity to interchange with the council and the commissions and I'm really grateful that I got to be part of the public tonight. [laughter] So thank you.

Thank you. There aren't any other comments on this one are there? like our child come speak up by [laughter] we've just had a lot of callins and extra ones. So I just want to make sure I didn't miss one. Yeah, we we haven't received anything else on them yet. So all right [gasps] then I'll go ahead and close public comment and then I bring it back to the um commission for discussion and motion again. Thank you Darren for reminding me. Mhm. Sometimes you get like into it and then it's I think uh I think the M2 is too broad. Uh I think I I want to support this specific plan uh I think in a different way.

Okay. Any other comments? Yeah. Oh, Jeff, go ahead. Is that okay? I'm sorry. I probably just I'm I'm You're doing your best. Just go ahead.

Yeah. No, you're good. I'm just um I'm failing to see Britain. So maybe you can help me see what you're seeing the downside of expanding this in this area. I just don't see as a high risk there. I don't think there's data to support uh that we have more crime uh because of tattoo parlors. Um and and and and I don't help me see what you're seeing that makes you uncomfortable with this.

Yeah, I think I think mostly it's if you look at that map that portrays all of the um zones that we have, the M2 zone covers a vast uh area. Um, and I think that so just no, I don't have data. It's just from my personal experience of having rented and and literally been the manager of tattoo parlors and had to been responsible for the complaints and dealing with law enforcement. Uh, that I can provide a a firsthand account uh what made my job harder while I was managing uh those those few residents or those few occupants. Uh, I just think the the M2 zone, I think adding it to that, I just think um and I mentioned the the uh massage therapy locations, you know, that are like, you know, Cricut wireless, you know, the ones that are just they're everywhere, you know, or like uh mattress firms, you know, it's like what how many do we need? So, I just think the M2 is too big of an area for it to include something that has such a fast upstart. Um, in addition to the additional requirements that it has, I think that I don't have anything against Tai Places in particular. I just think that from a macro perspective for the city of ORM and a 20 30year timeline, I think the M2 zone specifically chosen to include these areas. I think is too big for a 20 or 30 year timeline. I think if we can find something more specific uh that can be a little bit more niche, I think would be more appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Darren is actually first. Uh let's see what number was this again? What SLU? It's the 60 20. Yeah, 6231 6232. And if you turn it over, the page is the other one we currently have, which is 6232. Yeah.

Okay. So, um Okay. So, 6231 is permitted in um uh several places already. Um and uh you know, I'm not able to do that math in my head right now. But your your concern Britain is that well this expands it but it seems already permitted in several kinds of places. Yeah.

And so and it strikes me that so uh it also strikes me that there are other regulations in place. I like this you know 15% of the revenue of the beauty shop to have a tattoo place. That would seem to by itself cut down on concerns about crime as that would be primarily beauty and barber shops. No, that's for this particular example. Uh uh I think 6232 requires everything from what I can tell. Tattoo shops always have to be part of a beauty and barber shop.

Can we get clarification on that? because I was wondering about that too because the one that's listed here in our motion I mean in our um item is 32 is 6232 which is the one that's the 15%. As opposed to are all of our tattoo shops in the C1 barber shops also cuz I don't think the one down the street for me is Oh, they're supposed to be. Well, I don't know. Okay. So, I haven't exactly walked in to check. But do you remember how earlier Becca told you that business licenses up until recently were being reviewed not? Yes, exactly. That's why fair so so they right yeah sorry

so I would make the point that there are safeguards already in place and that uh this is an expansion but it's not an enormous expansion and it seems like an appropriate uh needed kind of business and in in this kind of area. I thought he made a very nice point about that. Yeah, Susan, I was just going to say I think uh in our area everything's built out down there. It's built out and there's a high demand for light industrial mixed use, whatever you want to call it, where I just don't see as a property owner, I'm going to put in a tenant who is solid that I don't have to worry about. So, if I have someone who wants to come to me and I own that property, I'm going to be less likely to lease it to someone, if I'm concerned about it, and if I am concerned about it, I'm going to jack up that rent price to cover my concern enough. So, I think the free market will kind of do it. I think that space is built out in light industrial and um you know what I mean man manufactured the M2 it's kind of all built out. There's no it's not like anyone's going to it's kind of all that light industrial feel and it sounds like it's a great location for what you want to do. I just feel like it fits the land use. I would rather have it there than right next to a residential zone,

which we have a lot of those already. Sure. Which I mean, at least down the street from you. Yeah. A couple blocks away. Yeah. And I can appreciate that as a business owner, that would be your perspective. Yeah. Having the experience of having been a third party property manager, there's a lot of owners that don't care and they they just want it rented, period. And they don't care who goes in it. They don't care the parameters. And if there are concerns or or complaints, it's not their problem because it's my job. So it's I think you need to charge for

But if your concern is that we're gonna invite, you know, because this is a big, you know, a big zone that we're going to invite more and more of this, I just don't see the market normally wanting to go into that space anyway. You want frontage. You want people to see you as they drive by. So again, I don't think that the that the fear that by allowing it in M2, suddenly we're going to have 500 of these in in the city next next, you know, next year. Yeah. I think and I I go along with that, too, that I think we're in a place where there's a lot that's already allowed in the M2 and it's not like people are throwing up McDonald's every four blocks because it's allowed. Yeah.

And I think the other side of it too is if we're looking in the 20 to 30 time frame, the reality is that area is probably going to redevelop in in a different way because of the pressures of housing Utah City coming in. There's going to be a lot of things that I think as we've talked about with general plan discussions in the past and things that there may be other I would be surprised if it's exactly the same in 30 years from what it is now. And really tattoos parlors are already all over. They are next to our homes. They are wherever. And and it's it's a choice and I I think it makes a lot of sense to be in that area.

True. All right. You guys have you guys have persuaded me. Yes, Carl. So, again, this is just an accessory. It it's not the primary tattoo business. It has to have the barberh shop, beauty parlor component with it. So, it's not a standalone tattoo shop or smoke shop. It just it is an accessory business that fits in with a beauty a beauty shop. Thank you, Susan. May I make a motion? Yes, you may.

I move that the Oram City Planning Commission, Am I close enough that you can hear me? Forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request to amend article appendix A of the ORM city code by including standard land use number 6231 beauty and barber shops and SLU6232 tattoo and body piercing as permitted in the M2 zone. Second. Okay. Susan moved and Britain seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. I'll begin with Jeff for voting. I Okay, Britain. I I I

I I Okay, we will forward a positive I mean a recommendation of approval. See, we used to call it different and it is still stuck in my brain that way. That's why I say it wrong every time one day. So, that will be a positive recommendation. Nope. still going to say it to city council. Recommend approval. We we can go back to that. It's just how I type stuff. I know it's all okay. Thank you all. And then I will read it in in just half a second. Okay.

Okay. Now, we're going to move on to item 5.4, which is a rightway vacation for Home Depot. It's a request to vacate a.16 acre portion of the 1,00 South right ofway termination at 590 East and this is the city's again. So Jared will

Thank you. Um it's actually it's not ours actually. It's Woodberry Group. That's okay. It's for the Home Depot by Woodberry Group cuz they own the property here at at the uh shopping center. So this is a a red outline of the area that's to be vacated. Just a a little um a primer on the one of the weirdest things you'll do. I've only done a couple of these in all the time that I've done it. It's very possible that this will be the only time you ever see a rideway vacation. So rights away are owned, that's even the wrong term. Rights away are different than fee title property. So let's say that the city owned this piece of property and we were going to deed that or we wanted to give that to the Home Depot or to the Woodbury Group. we would declare it surplus and then deed it over or sell it to them or whatever we might do. Cities do not do that with rights of way. We have to we have to vacate them. Um so we have different kinds of rules because they're they're not property in the same way that that other lots and fee title properties property. So that's that's the reason it's a rideway vacation. We don't process them very often. Um, the Home Depot is building a new uh facility here on the Woodbury Group's uh Union uh University Place um property and this piece of the end of the rideway at 1000 South has always been part of that uh that site plan and that equation. Um it was reszoned uh to PD34. That's the zone that covers University Place. Um last year uh the site plan was approved recently. Um the property here is part of it as well that's been purchased by um by the mall for a long time. Um I'll just go to another slide here to show you. These are this is that parcel that you could see there. That house that's owned by the mall. Sorry, that's owned by the mall. This is the end of the rideway to be vacated. And this is actually part of the uh the project as well. So you can see here what what we've had them do is describe

the end of that rightaway with legal terms so that we can declare it vacated and then vacate it to them. Uh the way vacations work, you're also as a city or an entity that has that rightway. You don't get to sell it. You don't get to choose who gets it. You have to vacate it to the property owners on either side abuing that rightway. In that case, that is the University Mall. So um that's who gets it regardless. um no one is affected by it. They're all still able to access their properties, those residences that are still uh in use there, the Olsson's property, etc. Um and then this would become part of the parcel which is or part of the uh Union I I'm going to keep saying Union Place, I'm sorry, the University Place uh property. So, that's been anticipated by the subdivision that we have approved, by the zone changes that we've approved. We're just getting around to the rightway vacation at this point to to make the subdivision uh workable. So, do you have any questions about how that would work for us? It's something that you would recommend to the council whether you say yes or no and the council makes the decision to vacate.

Right. So, quick question. So, the 590 east, is that a rightway or is that just it's it's been vacated for a while. Okay. It was it was vacated along with an easement uh that was recorded back in 2020. So, we're not vacating that part. Just this is all that's left of right away. Carl, not Carl Mecca. Sorry. So, this isn't going to be used as a right as a egress or no thing, is it? It's just going to be fenced off.

That's right. The PD34 is a wall actually that goes here. The PD34 zone doesn't allow it. It's written specifically for university place. It doesn't allow any access out onto the residential side over here. And in fact, what you guys missed this the fun of all of this stuff. most of you. So, um, they're actually there's going to be a a tall wall here, a 12 12T wall across all of this property to kind of barricade them. That's a harsh term, but to to block them off from that residential neighborhood. And then University Place, Woodbury Group is going to deed a little extra property to these folks so that the the super tall wall is a little further away from their homes. Um, so they have a little extra space there. So, yeah, no access through. It'll be walled off. Good question.

Any other questions about the rightway vacation? So, just for clarification, is somebody from Aberry here to speak or No, I spoke with Kathy earlier. Didn't see her. She was not going to be able to be here, but that was I figured I told her I know enough about this project after all these months that I should be able to answer anything that's happened. Just want to be clear if we needed to go to applicant or she's she's a they're aware that it's happening but not not in attendance tonight. Okay. And to be clear like the city's vacating. I wanted to reccl the city would be vacating it. That's that's what you meant when you said

yes that's what I meant to say and I wanted to make that clear and I'm trying really hard not to make a joke about asking if it's going to Hawaii but anyway um it's 8 o'clock guys. I can make jokes. Um so um we do need to do the public hearing so I will it is a public hearing so I need to open for public comment so I will do that now. Um if you would like to come forward and speak 3 minutes state your name please.

Yes. And um I will go ahead and open that for public comment. and I will close public comment and we will continue on. So, this is pretty straightforward. It needs to happen. It's behind the wall. Um, it's just this is crossing eyes and no crossing tees and dotting eyes. Since my last motion got overturned, I want to move that the ORM city planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the request to vacate the 0.16 acre portion of the 1,00 South Rideway terminating at 590 East as described. Uh period, end of motion. Um point of view, I need a vacation, too.

Second. In unison, Darren moved and Britain seconded that we with enthusiasm that we forward a recommendation of approval to the city council and I'll take a vacation. Sorry. No, you're fine. You're totally fine. Carl, hi. I I I I I Jeff I It is unanimous. Item 5.4 Four will be forwarded with a recommendation of approval. Thank you. Okay. Is there anything? Normally I turn to Gary, but Gary's on vacation talking about people who are good.

So, I'll I'll let Gary know. I'll text him right now. I know he's going to be sad he missed this one. So, okay. If there is no further stuff or information stuff. Wow, I really am tired now. I need dinner very badly. Um, if there's no further business, could I have a motion to adjurnn? I'll motion that we adjourn. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Oh, Britain moved and Susan seconded just before you, Jeff. No worries. To adjourn, but I will start with you, Jeff, for voting. I I I I I I I I

Okay, we are adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Thank you guys. Thank you all so much. Really appreciate it. See you. Oh, you guys did the heavy lifting tonight. You did.