Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I love you, too. Hey, we're ready to call to order.

So we will call our work session to order at 4.30 p.m. on May 20, 2026 in the city council conference room. And it's a planning mission. I don't think I said that, but there you go. Just before we jump in, is there any questions on any of the items today that anybody is interested in or has, wants to talk about real quick?

have a couple of plan amendments and are we gonna talk at all about the reason the wolverine rezone i just had a question because it said there's a 10 acre minimum zone area this is only 9.29 how does that factor in that's a good question for the m2 yeah yeah the output factor it should it should be slightly larger than that to do it okay so i just didn't know if if that's a loose You know, there's guidelines and there's loose guidelines.

No, I don't. I would not assume that it's loose. They could add to it, I guess. I'm not used to the ring minimum. So it's not something that I looked at. I apologize.

No, no, it's totally fine. It's one of those little minute. No, I would agree. Because that gives us an easy way to say. It doesn't meet that.

I would double check. No, I was confused by it too. And if you look, I was debating which one it actually fits into.

Okay.

So we may want to look at that. It was in the staff report. Okay. I think when we do the presentation, we definitely should look into that. Because I was confused by the way it was phrased and wasn't quite sure what that meant.

Because one was like a half acre and one was like 10 acres. It would mean a particular parcel we're talking about, but it has to be part of a larger 10 eighths. We might thought, but I wasn't sure.

Yes, I agree. We need to clarify that.

Block creation. You know, lots in those zones.

Are they subdividing? I thought it was the one thing.

It's just a zone change application. But in many cases, that's when those minimums are for new lots. So I don't know how that would apply to this.

Great question. Like I said, I was a little confused.

Really good question. Thank you.

Any other questions on our agenda tonight? Carl, you don't have any?

I don't have anything. Can you hear me?

Yeah, I can.

Okay, great.

Okay. Then we will start with item one on our work session, which is discussion at 360 West, 1500 South. The item we had last time, and there's still a lot of questions about it. We continue to...

Yes, it got continued. And I was absent that week. I was supposed to be on the previous meeting, but for some reasons it had to be moved. And so I wasn't able to be there. And then looking at the Planning Commission continuing it. Now, when the Planning Commission continues an item, usually it's for there's an item of information that you need to be able to make a recommendation or decision. And I'll be honest, in looking at it, I'm not quite sure what you're looking for.

I think that was a britain's opinion who kind of over rode the initial motion which was to forward for approval to the council uh he wanted parks to weigh in on um One of the questions about, you know.

Because they had said they'd been promised it would be a park. Yeah.

Is it feasible to park in all this buried concrete, which has concerns for something? I don't understand. I think that was the most.

It's an access road that they have down that east side that does that. I know grandfather clause. It's essentially they've had a road. Yeah.

There's some questions about the right of way along the. i guess that's the east side there's some questions regarding that the majority of the public who came were pro park and i think that partly led to that and i think there was also concerned about engineering and i get that the item that was before us is the r8 and whether or not it should be r8 um but i think there are some greater concerns as to

Did you do a park in R8, by the way, if you wanted to? Yeah. Good.

Okay.

Great. So that doesn't preclude that. It doesn't preclude it.

No. No. But some concerns about, now you have the policy, and now you asked a question. Now my brain went a totally different direction.

Yeah, see, and I kind of looked at it, and, you know, usually it's like, oh, I need to get this fact and bring back to the Planning Commission, and I'm not quite sure.

So maybe I would ask you the question. Okay. grandfathering something, right?

What do you mean?

If I put a fence line and it's 10 feet off, my benefit, even if it's on my neighbor's property after 10 years, there's some time after 10 years that that becomes... Boundary by acquiescence, things like that. I'm wondering if the road along the east side, which is now on the top side of the screen...

The easy answer for that is no.

Okay.

You don't not adversely possess government property. This is government property. So somebody could for the last 30 years had a fence right down the middle and using it, stuff like that. It's not their property. It's government property.

That's okay.

Yeah. And it's not a right-of-way. It's just a road that people have been using, but it doesn't create a right-of-way.

Okay. And I think part of the issue, too, there was some engineering concerns, kind of the road, things that I know for me talked about this parcel of land a lot. And I think it was even before you came, maybe right when you came. um with the development to the south and that whole area we've done a lot around it um i think part of the issue we also had in the last meeting is that literally the only person who was there was jared so we had no one to answer legal questions nobody to answer engineering questions

Well, what engineering questions? See, and that's what I need to know. What engineering question would impact a recommendation from you?

For the R8?

Sure, or anything.

Was it the, I think it was the concrete. We wanted to see more, maybe have more information on sampling as to how much they found, how long that process is going to take. Because if there's And maybe I'm wrong here, so please correct me. If there's a lot of concrete and a lot of asphalt buried up there, we can't develop it anyway. So why are we going down the path to change it? Because it can't be, right? Am I understanding that correctly? You're fine. Help me. Help me on that.

So I can't see underground and tell you how much is there, but I can tell you what we've done. we hired a firm and they went out and dug five test pits and we didn't see anything. And we dug in areas that people were telling us, oh yeah, we saw lots of concrete coming in. We then, based on that preliminary result, we went ahead and took another step. We had, in conjunction with Public Works, we went out and dug Not on the bottom. Those, but up on our property, we dug in in the buildable area of every lot. And went down to native soil and you can tell what's native soil. I'll give you a hint of how you can tell it's called sand Hill. so we just dug till we found the sand that's up there in one or two areas or one area we found a few concrete uh chunks but again uh could we have dug in all the wrong areas Sure. Right. Yeah, I've had experience with that. The library at Academy Square on University Avenue in Provo. It's an old building built in the 1800s. And how they built it was they dug a big trench and they threw in boulders. And when they redid the building, they had to literally go in and dig section by section. And I'm only talking three, four feet at a time. under the existing building pour a new footing. Oh. and basically glue the existing to it. And they went in and they dug 10 test pits all the way around it. And we had a change order request for a million dollars because as they got into it, they literally by feet missed sometimes massive boulders that were thrown into this. And so, yeah, I can't guarantee you that we won't get into this and find something else. You know, but that happens with any type of development. Yeah.

Just enough questions.

And we were uneasy. I was. That's what it comes back. I come back to what I was saying. There were questions that we had that probably are easy answers, but because we didn't have staff there to answer them, we. Some of us, myself included, didn't feel comfortable.

And that's fine. It's. I'm not concerned that it was continued. What I'm concerned is that I looked at it and I'm not quite sure what the questions are or what information I would need to come back with.

Can I, I sent an email that I thought maybe wasn't appropriate in that email. I'm curious to know procedurally that's the case, but I'm curious. The email was fine. Okay. I'm curious to know a city's motivation. And does that play into our decision? Can it? Should it? I think it should, but maybe I don't get it. What is the motivation for this, for doing this? Is there, you're going to connect the sewer to those homes down there on the bottom right, which is awesome, right? Up there. Or the top.

Yeah, people on septic tank up in the other area. This project would allow them to connect in.

So they benefit from this, and this allows that to happen, pay for it with development. Is there anything else? Is there net revenue coming to the city?

Oh, yeah, we hope so. We won't do this if it's going to be a loss for the city. Absolutely wouldn't do it. To break even, do you do it? I don't know. I don't know. If it's a loss, I would tell the council, don't do this. And the council, this has to go to council. And the issues of whether it should be a park, as a matter of fact, this property is listed or shown on a map of the parks master plan as a piece of ground that's owned by the city that could be a park. I can tell you as staff, we don't have any funding for the park. We wouldn't be asking for funding for the park. As a matter of fact, any proceeds that would come from this. we would recommend to the council take those proceeds and put it into a more regional park out in the southwest. One of the big areas we have, precious little park areas, is out southwest. This area, this is just right around the corner from Nelson Grove. You've got Cherry Hill Park. You've got, you know, it's well, that area is well served by parks. And it's a fairly small park. And it would be difficult to develop as a very usable park.

Just speaking for myself, I would be very interested in any proceeds from this going to a park fund. So for those people who say, hey, we need a park, I would say, hey, this helps.

Can I say something, too, just history-wise? I have to acknowledge you. May I? Yes, you may. There was talk with the neighbors of having a dog park because that's what our city needs, and that was not desirable. by them. They did not want that.

And there was a lot of comments to us about it being a park and staying a park and staying a dirt park where people can dirt bike and where people can walk. I'm going to say the liability.

i'm just saying what they said there was talk about that yeah that's okay i'm just i'm just wanting i don't want to interject too much but i just want to give you that history so that a park was presented to the area in the form of a dog park they didn't want my my if it's okay for me to say something my question was kind of double fascinating first one was if it was to be a park

My issue is with the elevation and what kind of liability does the city have for anything that might happen on said property if it was a park. It's not really conducive for, I mean, people are like, well, we can do it as a mountain biking park. Yeah, well, it's teeny. It's not feasible. And we have a mountain bike park up the canyon that we really invested in. 100%. The other question that I have, and I know I was thinking about it after meeting a little bit, and I thought, well, my nervousness comes into that little road that's on the very top of the development.

Yeah. That dirt pathway.

Do we have any legal concerns with egresses, et cetera, with the people in that neighborhood?

Well, if the question is, do we think somebody has an adverse interest on that? The answer is, no, we don't. But we have talked. So you look at all those lots across the top part. That's the east side of the problem. Those lots that are adjacent to that are actually very deep rocks and could be developed. We've talked with the owners. Okay. We would like to work with you guys now. The city's not going to make their properties developable at taxpayer costs. They have to pay their fair share of it. The problem is there's a big elevation change. You see those homes, and you probably drop 20 feet down to the property, and then the property's pretty flat. So they could develop it, but they have to find a way out. We've already committed to the neighbors that we would work with them. To come up with some sort of access. That they could develop this development. Could also the careers are trying to develop. They're that property right there. They have some sewer issues. There's the septic tank issues. So as a city, we could get people off septic tanks. We could provide opportunities for people to subdivide their lots and put things in. But again, it's going to be one of those things. You got to speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't, Exactly. Jump on, development will pass you by and you'll be stuck.

And that's my whole thing. I mean, if it's a net benefit for the people who have property up there, for those folks who have, you know, were, I don't know if they were promised or not, but they'd be able to sign in. to the sewer lines and everything else. Right now, they're kind of up there all by themselves, so they couldn't develop it. If it's a net benefit for everybody involved, we've got to look at the 80% that it's a benefit to.

It allows careers to develop, and it allows those other lots to the east, where the cursor is, to subdivide and develop, and it would provide an opportunity for people to get off Septic takes, which as the city, we want everybody off the subject. So now the question about, could it be. A park.

Yeah, I'm not a proponent of the park issue. I mean, that's too many liabilities there. My main thing is just making sure that if we do. Grant the zone change and everything else that is going to be a benefit for everybody involved.

Yeah. As far as the park issue goes, if this were a really desirable area for us to have a park from a financial standpoint, a usability standpoint, providing park space in areas in the city that don't have it, you know, all of those issues, we'd already be... Uh, we have to propose that to the council. There's a reason. We're proposing this to you is it while it's listed as a possible area because it's city owned property, it could be a park. It is so far down the list of. of viability from the executive staff looking at it, whether we would propose to the council to move forward with that. We're not proposing it. As a matter of fact, we think for parks, generally in the city, this is a much better solution. If you develop this, we're worried about if it remains. We want to do something with this property. It's our property. We don't like the liability. We don't like the illegal activities going on up there. It's not a good park that we would want to spend money to develop and then maintain and to make it usable. Boy, that's going to be a hard one. Lots of parks, you know, people... i can tell you what uh my kids when they were younger is like yeah develop that and we're gonna go ice blocking in the winter and all of that stuff and we're not interested in that type of liability so if this doesn't work and now just because we've made this application it doesn't bind the council to anything the ultimate decision will be with the municipal council and as we go along uh You know, whatever your recommendation is, the council will look at that carefully. And then let's assume they said, yeah, we want to rezone it. Well, what that does is it tells me I can start spending more money. I have some money in some engineering funds. I've spent some of that. It's not a big deal. I've done kind of soft costs in the city, you know, force accounts and, you know, having employees do some work. Now we would really start to spend some money. And if we got in, the second we found out, oh, yeah, there's this massive concrete field we can't do anything with, or we couldn't develop because it's going to cost us $10 million to remediate this, well, guess what? We're not going to spend $10 million on this. It's just not going to happen.

So can I ask, I'm sorry, are you done?

Yeah.

Can I ask a question? And this will reveal my lack of knowledge. So you're going to help teach me, explain the interplay with water and sewer between city property and the two to three are there three developments up there there was the ladies and the two that are there it seems like they've paused everything waiting to see what the city's going to do with their property which gives could give the appearance that they're waiting to piggyback onto the city making the changes and may piggyback into the system, saving them money, meaning the developers of that property. And I don't know how that works, so someone can educate me. I just don't want that appearance to be... No, no, and I don't think it is.

I think it's a situation where, in essence, what it seemed to me in the last meeting is that they were under the assumption that this was going to happen one way or the other with either this development or another development, and they were going to be able to be tied in. Right now, they're an island. They can't do anything with it. And so I think that we've kind of extended ourselves as a city... to them and put us in a situation where, you know, they're like, well, we thought this was what was going to happen and that we would be able to do this, which is why we originally bought the lots. And now we've kind of, fallen down.

So they developed those or wanted to develop those, plotted it, put in the curb, the streets, the gutter, assuming that the city would step in.

They haven't done anything. They have come to us and they have asked for subdivision. I want to believe that it's like family property. No, we're not talking about Acadia. We're talking about Sunflower Dunes. Yeah, they came to us and we, in the past have approved for them to have a couple lot. I don't know. Maybe 6, something like that. Back there.

Yeah. And they can do that. What they have to do. Is they can have a road that can come here. and if they want to build a road and come in and do that great for their development they need to build that road so for their development that's what they have to do but they also have to get water to it go ahead and have to get sewer to it so when i was up there driving around

This up through here has rose in development. Is any of this pausing on what they're doing to tie into existing water and sewer? No. We're talking about only... Only those right there. Yes.

Yes.

Only one that's not. Below is Acadia, and isn't it two phases? The problem is when he shows the map, part of Acadia phase two is correct, is the R12 lots to the south. Right down here. There's a proposed... I mean...

on the like right right there's kind of a proposed road going up through there right into this property i guess i just wanted to make sure because you're up there and i see stuff going on and there's not a lot going on and it looks like they paused that's and i'm like wait why are they pausing

Gary, I'm sorry. One of the questions, and I think I know the answers to this, what is the benefit to the city both financially and civically to have 10 or 12 home, single family homes built on these properties as far as revenue and just community civic benefits? To me, I think that overrides anything that we're worried about right here.

Well, a benefit is if you take a look at that area, and based on one of the subdivision approaches we have, there's anywhere, what, 13 lots, let's just say. You know, just at market rate of 13 lots, they're going for, you know, to the mid, and this is probably conservative, $250,000. So just based on, you know, we do a lot of infrastructure projects and bid them out and review things. We're estimating, because we don't know until we get in and how hard it is, but around $2 million of revenue that would come to the city. So that $2 million, we would recommend to the council, and again, the council would be in charge of that money. It would come to the city. They would then take that money, and our recommendation would be, okay, let's take that $2 million and put it in a more regional park out in the southwest. This area is already well served by parks. We know we have a large hole in our arts plan out in the Southwest. 2Million gets us fairly far down the road with with some things out there. If you don't want to do something with this figure out what to do with the property, because it's not a very good park. we don't really want to wouldn't be recommending spending the money to develop this as a park we're concerned about a myriad of issues with that and then we would probably at the end of the day you know i i don't know what we would do with it you know it's not great to own this property They just have it there. That's always a liability issue to us. It's a public safety issue to us. It's a lot of things. So that's kind of the revenue side from the civic side.

So Gary, even past that, Ongoing. You know, you've got 18 single family consumers there that are then buying sales tax items in the city. You've got property taxes and things like that that are ongoing there, as well as the $2 million you may get from just sales.

Yes, and beyond that, we look at things not like a regular developer. A regular developer might come in and say, well, okay, we're going to put this stuff in, say, careers and people to the east. How much are you going to pay us to get easements across our property to hook into a sewer that we would have to build? You know, what we're looking for is not to make money on those issues. We're actually looking to get people off a septic system. You know, not that we would build septic. everything for them they would need to they need to tie in they need to tie in and they would need to bear those costs but we would be willing to work with them we're also willing to you know the people to the east okay we'll work with you on our some on our property some on your property and access easement or something for you to come back there and you know you pay your cost of it but we're not looking to make money off them So that's one thing. Another thing we would be recommending to the council is when we sell these lots, we know we have UVU nearby. We know we've got some high density apartments and student housing creeping into neighborhoods are an issue. We would recommend the council that we don't sell these unless we put need restrictions on it for owner occupancy. which if you have a core group of owner occupants in this, that for the next, you know, couple of decades, that could be a real benefit to the community.

Yeah.

So, you know, those are some of the things that we're looking at there. Were there any other like real specific issues that we need to get some information back to you.

Let me ask Carl. Carl, did you get your question answered?

Yeah, kind of. Again, like I said, there's additional soft benefits to the city, like the city's portion of property taxes, the consumer part of those single-family homes where you have people in there now buying groceries and retail and things of that nature that are a benefit to the city, where if this is just sitting there as dirt, we don't get that That bump in you know in represent, so I think there's a lot of soft benefits there, besides just the immediate sell selling of the property.

I had a couple of questions. I mean, and some of this is just to throw back in a general sense of what we're talking about, because I mean, we are kind of other than the council who has the final say, we totally recognize that we're kind of the ones to vet this.

So I think it would. Yeah. And the council wants your recommendation.

Right. And so I think it behooves us to vet it a little bit, even though we're not to the actual planning design stage or whatever. But one of the basic questions then is, we kind of got a half answer on this at our last meeting, but why not sell it? If it is surplus property and the city doesn't want it, why not sell it to a developer?

We could.

I mean, that's still an option.

Well, yeah, that's... More money as a city because we will make more money. Because what a lot of developers do, they come... And they may not be the builders, but they make their money on the entitlements. And that's not an insignificant amount of money that he would just sell it to a developer who would then go through this same process and get it entitled. And then maybe flip it or they might keep it. There's lots of different people do that. Well, we know how to rezone something. We know how to entitle something. And it's our property. And it becomes more valuable when we go to sell if it's entitled than if it's

PF.

You can do it at a lower cost than a private developer, too, because you have all the equipment and staff and things, right, that can do some of the work.

Yeah, and a decision of how much, you know, I've had people say, hey, well, are you going to hire a company to come in and put in the infrastructure? But we haven't made that decision yet. Do we have the expertise to do all of that in-house? yes this is what we do we we develop uh engineering plans for water lines sewer lines roads we put in roads we put in sidewalks we do a lot of that stuff but those decisions haven't been made so i seem to me sorry that the larger question is

Do you do this often? Is this the first time this is being done by the city? And if so, is the city supposed to be involved in this? Or is that something that is in the wheelhouse and should be from a... I don't know, a conflict of interest standpoint. I'm not sure what. That should stay with the development arm. The city is taking over, not saying it's a bad decision. I'm just saying, I think it deserves some conversation.

That question, I would say, is starting to veer out of the Planning Commission's purview. Because Planning Commission is to look at proposals for development in the city. of what type of development. You know, looking at this, what should that area be? Should it be a park? Should it be residential? Should it be commercial? Should it be industrial? You know, looking at those types of issues. The question of whether, should the city on property its own develop a whole subdivision and then we sell lots? That's not really a land use decision.

So if we were to, yes, let's change it. Let's send it to the city council. Can we also, and this again is a process question. I'm not saying this is the wrong thing. I'm just wondering, how do we communicate to city council? Yes, we approved this, but may have some reservations over the city.

But again, is it on us to even suggest that? Or are we saying the city wants to rezone this and they could sell it to somebody else? They probably do at that point, right? Is that within our purview, as you said, and I don't think it is.

On a legislative item, you certainly... could say, you know, we think it should be residential, but city council, we don't think the city should be in the business of developing a subdivision. You know, which would be, you know, also, we don't think you should be in the business of developing a park or, you know, if a park were to come in. On a legislative recommendation, because you're making a recommendation to them, Yeah, that might be interesting information for the council to know. Now, if this were, let's say the rezone comes in and the council rezones it and the city decides to go forward and the city decides to do this and we're going to do it, it would not be a legitimate reason to turn it down because the city's doing it.

Right.

that you know and so yes on on a legislative item it's not strictly land use that you're talking about because it's you know and whether we do deed restrictions that's kind of veering more into ownership issues and those types of things those would be interesting for the council i think to know and hear because they'll hear that those same type of sentiments some uh As this goes on, and I'm sure they've already heard those types of sentiments now. So what you would do if that's what you felt, let's say you make a recommendation, you could make a recommendation. I think your primary recommendation should be. Should we do a rezone to the requested zone? Because we're the applicant and we've come in and we formally asked a question. And that question needs to be answered at some point. And so at some point you need to make a recommendation of. No, don't rezone it. Yes, rezone it or. Only rezone it if the city doesn't develop it. And then that will go to the council. They'll take your feedback. They'll weigh it. They'll have a hearing. They'll end up making a decision on it. and and i get this is a little different a little unusual um because we happen to own this piece of property and the city's not a developer and we're not going out looking for uh property to buy and develop it into things like the private market would be doing we happen to own this property and got it from you dot you used it from other things and regardless we own the property now originally it's been on a plan showing on a map that a possible park could be there frankly we just don't think it's a good area for a park for a myriad of reasons if we did i wouldn't have made this application

That also can change as we work on the general plan, too. The other question I had just in pondering is why R8 versus R12? Because we've got both going on around it. So why R8 versus R12?

A couple of reasons. One, R8 is kind of the default. You know, in the city, it's kind of... You know, we look at R8. Could it be R12? Sure. Could it also be, what's the size of this? Jared, I forget, is it like four acres? It is. Five and a half acres. Well, just our portion.

Our part is... About our part was four acres. Yeah, our part's a little smaller. It's like 1.65 acres is in.

Yeah. So our acreage is like four acres. It could be our four acre and one lot would go up there. Now, if that were the rezoning and only one lot could go in, we wouldn't do it. Can't pay for it. so yeah are we interested at the end of the day r8 is kind of a base standard in the city um and we get more lots out of it than r10 that or r12 that neighborhood has more homes in it that we could deed restrict for owner occupancy

And R8 doesn't preclude having larger lots. Most of them probably are.

Yeah, you see 12s, 10s, you know, but we need the R8 because of the configuration of it. You know, this is not an easy or good piece of property. All the easy stuff has been done in ORM.

Super difficult, but it's also some of the best views probably left. Yeah.

Yeah, there's some, yeah, there's going to be some, I would imagine people would love to live there.

Just to live in the apartments across the street, the views indeed are very wonderful.

So any other questions regarding this at this point?

Yeah, these questions are good. What I was afraid of is I was missing that there was like some specific unique piece of information about something. And I didn't quite know what that would be. And it was, you know, because I missed last meeting. Yeah. And it didn't under... You know, it's different when you're there and can really understand what's going on.

That's where I came back. I think it was cumulative. I think there were a bunch of small questions, but because we had no staff there that could answer that, we couldn't get them answered, so we didn't feel comfortable.

And again, it should have been, well, we were hoping for it to be on the previous meeting, but we had to put it on the last one, and then I had to be out of town for a while.

Yeah, my biggest concerns were just number one, the liability issue, number one, and then number two, if we had an obligation of easement on lots six through 11. That's my biggest concern.

No obligation, but we've been talking to the people up there and would be willing to work with them. Not that, you know, and willing to work, and I've tried to make this clear to people, willing to work doesn't mean you don't have to do everything, anything, and the city's going to do it and pay for everything so that you can have a separate lot.

Any other questions on this?

Now, if there is, now, Jeff, I think you... Did we cover the things? Because your email was pretty good, but then again, I wanted to make sure there wasn't a specific piece of information.

I wanted to make sure I understood all the motivation from the city, because I think that weighs on our decision. Sure. I can do that. Okay.

You had a quiz.

I wanted to make sure if anything we need to know about the Wolverine property, any information that would help us in our meeting tonight.

That was the question I asked at the beginning. If anyone had questions about this discussion. So it will be the presentation. And unless you have something other pressing. Yeah.

First question you asked, uh, Susan is one. Yeah. Yeah.

And that's probably, we asked that so they can have a minute to, to get together. But most of our conversation about really should be any other one. Um, we have like three to five minutes. Do you want to start the discussion on neighborhood meetings?

Or not five probably, but I could give you at least the background of what it was as a reminder and love to do it again. So you're aware of what's going on with it, but, um, Let's do the 1st slide. Oh, is it?

I just don't know how to read time. It's probably, I don't know. It's 514. I don't know how to read.

It's a chronograph.

She's young. Um, so analog clocks are hard for Jenna.

You might as well speak in a foreign language.

On April 16th, last year, 2025, the commission that includes none of you except for Madeline and Britton, Madeline and Britton and some other people who you don't know, recommended changes to Article 221420I and 2215G that have to do with the requirements that we have for holding neighborhood meetings. You've seen in your packets and reports about the neighborhood meetings, so... One of the things that happens, I'm just going to go through the things that have to happen. The changes that got recommended were that we would do notices to property over 2,000 feet for rezones, notices to property over 1,000 feet for commercial site plans, and then we would notice the distance from the subject property and that we would postmark. We'd ask for those notices to be postmarked at least 21 calendar days before the meeting. Those are changes from what it currently is. Right now it's 500 and 1,000 instead of 1,000. 2000. And the timing is, is it one week before? One week before. They need to be postmarked a week before they're going to have the meeting. Is it two?

It says that they must be postmarked at least 21 calendar days because we were having issues where people on the commission were not receiving things. All right.

When we started talking about, we talked about it for a while, and at first we were saying two weeks or three weeks, and we ended up saying 21 calendar days so that there was no confusion.

Yeah.

For the postmark. And then you have to remember that we turn this all over to the applicants. That's the other thing that's important to know is we don't hold those meetings. We don't attend those meetings. Those are their meetings, and they have to do them before we process their applications to us as a staff and commission. And we can get into this more time to do it, but I want to give you your time to switch through those changes. The crux was that those changes got recommended, but they never got taken up by the council and adopted or considered. So, if that's going to happen in the near future here, we wanted to make sure you guys were at least aware. Those are changes that would be happening a couple of things that got and we did implement and so with with those, it went to the council and for.

At the end of the day, I let it fall through the cracks. It didn't get on the council agenda. Somebody was asking me recently who's. Who will remain nameless, but who's in this room? He's on the council sitting on the back row. said, Gary, what happened to that ordinance we did? And I went, oh, crap. And I remembered it. And we, anyways. And so we're going to get it back on a council agenda with the budget coming up. We're trying to find a place to get it in. So what we're here doing is telling you what happened. So if you see on the council agenda, you're not going, hey, how come we didn't talk about that?

You did.

It has the royal you. But I messed up on this at the end of the day. And so Jared is covering for me. Thank you, Jared. Take the hint, Jared.

So I got a notice three days after the fact on the ion solar tennis club court thing.

Oh, yeah. I'm assuming we're all supposed to be receiving those notifications. Yes. And that goes to exactly what I was going to say. Part of the concern that was arising repeatedly was that we wouldn't get those notices. Specifically, we're talking about neighborhood meeting notices. Correctly? Correct. So, yeah, we're talking about what? From the developers. From the developers. Right. And, like, some of them were sending things. Literally, we watched the postmarks. Like, they were sending things from Washington a week before the scheduled date here in Utah. And so things don't make it. Yes, I agree. It's like my mother-in-law can't figure out why we can't get mail from Washington, D.C. to here in under a week and a half. It's weird. It's just the way things work. So part of the idea of 21 days, though that is long, is to make sure people can have it. I'm just saying what the conversation was at the time. People can find babysitting. People can put it on their calendar.

But I think I asked Chris last time, and I forgot the answer. How do we validate that that actually happens? And if it doesn't happen, then what do we do as a city?

So they send us the information. They asked them to start using these templates that we have. That was part of the change, but we didn't really need the full-throated, it's passed and made in ordinance thing to start sending them materials and saying, when you do your neighborhood meeting, you want to use this form because when you guys do your own notices... Boy, are they garbage. And so they use these different forms, and we ask them for minutes from them. And anybody can do minutes now. It's easy to do. And so we gave them a kind of a form to see your minutes on, include this kind of information, because we were getting just kind of garbage materials back. But if they haven't had the meeting, we won't schedule them for the PC.

They had a meeting, but there's really no way for us to really validate who's watching, I guess, because I'm not.

Good question.

Yeah. So. Validate that it happened or what? They actually sent it in the time frame they were required to send it. Is anybody following up on that? And do we care to? Yes. Yeah.

i am on the list okay so you're so every neighborhood meeting that goes out you should give them the we give them the list of dates okay an address all you got to do is pay the postage and send the letter fill it out and done and No matter where it is in the city, my address is included, and it comes to my house. My wife hates it. She brings in all these things. What is this? It's freaking her out. I've asked Jared to put his name on that list, so he always gets one. And then one of the things is it needs to be postmarked 21 days before the meeting. And so that should be an easy thing for us to look at.

That's good. See, there's you on there. We have another executive staff member who's on there. The mayor has elected to have, she's on all of them and she uses her office address. So it gets postmarked. We get a copy here of when it happens. There's also, I think we've added our community development department on it. So it's a little bit redundant, but that way we're making sure if they're sending them out in like, which is that they're making it where they're supposed to be. I don't know what's happening when they're coming to your house, but most of the time they get to us normally pretty good.

Any other questions?

We should probably transition, so we will move to our regular meeting. We'll adjourn to our regular meeting. Excellent. So we will go ahead and call our planning commission meeting to order at 530 p.m. on May 20th, 2026 in the city council chambers. And just as a reminder, please speak closely into your mic so that it's loud enough to be heard. We've been having audio issues. And then we're going to begin with an invocation by Jeff.

Dear Father in Heaven, we're grateful to be here this evening. We pray that we may have Thy Spirit as we discuss. We'll have a spirit of openness and be able to listen and hear and make good decisions. We pray, Father, for the land we live in and for this city and for all the people who participate and work hard to make it a better place. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you so we'll begin with the consent agenda agenda item, which is item 3.1 approval of the April 1 2026 minute minutes. 3.2 approval of the May 6 2026 minutes item 3.3, which is a plot amendment the Aiken Estates Platte C located generally at 721 South 100 West. And item 3.4, which is a plot amendment for Lake Ridge Farms Platte B located generally at 513 South 840 West. So motion or questions? Is there no question? Okay. Then let's have a motion.

I move that the Orem City Planning Commission approve the consent agenda.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, Darren moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the consent agenda. Darren, vote.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

Didn't ever get on. Okay. All right. Then that motion passes. Thank you. We'll move on. We have nothing on item four. Item five, we have 5.1, which is a rezone. It's the Wolverine rezone. It's a request to rezone the property located generally at 1075 South, 1675 West from controlled manufacturing CM to manufacturing M2. It's approximately 9.28 acres. Jared?

And that's a misprint. I'm sorry. It is 5.45 acres. Oh, what's on your screen there is correct. Okay. we had a couple of, um, things we need to, to sort out here. The question was asked in the work meeting about the 10 acre minimum lot, uh, not, sorry, not lot size, but a zone area. Uh, that is a, that is a requirement. Um, there, there might've been confusion from before when they originally applied, they looked at an M one zone that requires five acres somewhere. We've gotten wires crossed about that, but that does not allow the self storage units that they want to do on the property. Um, This is an application to rezone the property to M2, which is our heavy industrial or heavy manufacturing class that would allow them to do these storage units here that you see in this slide. They'd like to do self-storage and then convert some of those existing buildings for climate control. Self-storage is only allowed in our M2 zone. So that's the reason for the request. The current zoning is controlled manufacturing. It would not be appropriate to rezone the property because we don't zone M2 less than 10 acres at a time. What I'd like to suggest or ask you to do consider as a commission is rezone continuing the item so that we can talk to the applicants and see if they want to try to add area to their request i know they have some control or if i recall correctly they have some control over other uh adjoining parcels here they might want to add that to their total request or ask for an amendment of some kind to the zone area standards they have a couple of routes they could go uh but we we can't really recommend approving it so i'd like to see if you'd be willing to continue it so we can work with them or have them withdraw the application if we can Service it.

So just for clarification, it doesn't, as far as we can tell right now, it doesn't meet code.

That's correct.

Okay. All right. So do we, this is us, are we okay continuing this item? Okay. Then let's, can I get a motion on continuing?

Selma, a motion? Do it. Okay. I move that the Orem City Planning Commission continue the request for further consideration to... Will you do it to a condition that we resolve some issues? To a condition that we resolve the issues that would make this a viable request. Thank you.

Okay, do I have a second? Second the motion.

Okay, Darren moved and Jeff seconded again. Just, sorry. That we continue this item until conditions can be considered. We'll go ahead and vote, Jeff.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

This item is continued.

Thank you. My apologies.

Yeah. Gary?

I want to remind you and invite you that Orem Fest will be the second week of June, starting, I believe, June 8th. I think that's the Monday that it starts. So please come be a part of that. It's a great event. week so many activities at the city and would just love uh as planning commission members to go and and just get a vibe for all of that stuff that's going on i think it helps you get a good and better understanding of what's happening in the city and things that are important to the residents and and can help you in your duties as planning commission members. And it's just fun.

Thank you. Okay. If that is all, then we will go ahead and adjourn. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I so move.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, Darren moved and Micah seconded that we adjourn. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Push button. Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

Thank you. We are adjourned at 5.37 p.m. Thanks.

Thank you.