Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

We will go ahead and call the city planning commission work session to order at 431 PM on July 1st, 2026 in the city council conference room. And we have kind of a meeting agenda. So if there's any questions that. We have a plan amendment and public hearing. Any questions for us right now? If not, we can just.

Maybe I didn't miss it, but I didn't see the public comments stuff on the meters on the needers one.

Yeah.

Oh, the neighbor, the neighbor meeting comment. Yeah, we didn't see any of that.

Oh, that is so are you saying that they didn't have the name wasn't in the packet?

Yeah.

So, that was some of the noticing stuff we've talked about with neighborhood meetings is that. Sometimes what we get back, did they even submit anything back in summary of what the meeting was? I think so.

Yeah. Yeah. It should have been.

It's and sorry about that guys.

No, that's okay. That was just I just want to get a flavor for what that was. That was a good post that we can give you.

Yeah, I didn't know there wasn't a huge turnout. I do know. Of course. The, the 53 zone already had been approved. So basically, this is just an adjustment to that concept plan. Okay, as far as I remember, there wasn't a huge. If you were backlash or anything of that nature was just more curiosity. As in, oh, this is what you're going to be doing type thing, which would make sense because of what's existing.

It's not exactly what's in our packet about the neighborhood meeting. Yeah.

We have them in depth track if you want it, we can pull them up and go over. Yeah.

Can we do that real fast? It's always good to see. Do we have that in DevTrack, or was it just an open email? It should be. Yeah, that's the question. All of that has to get uploaded. Thank you for noticing that. Oh, here's the plans.

I'm sure they had a neighborhood meeting for the original site.

The challenge is finding it. This is another one where I'm the only person who was on here when the original site plan was approved. It was a while ago. At that meeting, there was some neighborhood opposition to the changing. People were concerned about how close the buildings were going to be to residents and the wall. There was some expressed that. If we get some of that tonight or not, I'm not sure.

Of course, I do know that there was some people interested in it because someone called up asking, when's the planning commission meeting going to be?

It's usually a good sign. Which means, of course, people were aware.

They just were like, wait, it's been a while. Because, of course, the neighborhood meeting happened a while. And then it's been a while for it to get through our process.

So what's the existing height? Is it Alums? Alums. Yeah. That's a good question. Yeah. Because it's a pretty big wall behind those homes. I can't imagine it's that different.

It's no more than 20 feet.

Yeah, it's not that high. It's not that high.

Okay. But it's quite large.

And so it is definitely a big footprint.

Yeah. And I think that's some of the questions to discuss in the main meeting, too, is kind of footprint and how this is going to change.

There is a split building there. And now with the home built. Yeah.

And the idea was office and retail on the bottom.

I did notice that they had built the slope in to slope backwards towards the property lines.

I think they're moving closer to the property line than it was originally.

They are moving closer to it.

But not closer than what's currently there.

What's currently there is right next to it.

There's a truck laid behind it for when they were...

Yeah, rear access to the building. You could drive a tractor trailer through the back of that.

Small truck. I think some of those are good things to discuss in the main meeting. Thank you for bringing that.

That was the main difference. Yeah, and what they're proposing is it definitely would be pulled back from what currently is there right now. And then, of course, I think that's... You know, we're graduating.

Why is it not?

As you get further and further away.

Did you get my notes on the changes on the minutes? Okay. Lower your... I was just sorry. This is highlighting the first and second disorganization. Oh, yeah. And I seconded myself.

I know it had been in one of the Bluebeam sessions, but I'm not sure which one.

It was for POSCO, and I can't remember what I did on that, but I know it wasn't called. It wasn't, no.

It's weird, though.

They're 1 of those, so it was 1 of those where the geo coding didn't work.

Oh, so this is highlighting some of the problem we have with our system. So sometimes we'll attach files and sometimes we don't see them and sometimes we do see them and sometimes they're geo coded correctly. Sometimes they aren't. And so it's kind of like, 1 of those things where we hope everything that's there, but we don't necessarily see everything that's there. i'm guessing we have to research through emails and so forth because they That's why I usually keep it over years for the pertinent question is, was the neighborhood meeting helped?

Because if they didn't hold their neighborhood meeting through your process, if it hadn't happened, but I'm just trying to say clearly for the record, and we've had people calling up and asking.

Okay.

And I did get the notification. I saw it.

So it did happen too. And it wasn't massively attended and it wasn't a huge couple. It was just one of those things where people were a little curious.

That sort of thing. Oh, did you?

Okay, good.

Well, DevTrack does this weird thing where if you've had it open somewhat recently and you haven't shut down a whole thing and you find a search or something, the window that pops up where you type in your query shows up Somewhere not your screen. And so the program will tell you that it's running, but you can't access it.

And then you're stuck in it. It's trying to send a dialogue box to one of my other screens in my office. It's one on the second floor.

It's helpful.

Okay. Well, if we can find those screens. Okay.

This is messy. Sorry, guys.

It's just on YouTube forever. I know.

It's hiding. Yeah, that's what I was saying. That's email time.

Do you want to just give it a flavor for it?

It's in an email chain.

We can move on. Go back. No need to linger on this.

That's a good point, except are we past the point of no return on the commitment to finding this?

That's so far my review here.

I don't know. I think we're past the point of no return. I think we're going to read these minutes. We're going to get a flavor here. We're going to dive try in.

A couple more seconds of it.

We can come back to it back to it for the end. Right.

Right.

She looks close to a breakthrough. I have no doubt.

She'll get there.

We'll move on to detached accessory.

And so the 1st question I have about this is, was any. Everybody wasn't here last time for this discussion.

That might not right?

Jeff Jeff Jeff's made it back to us this time. So if it's okay, we have some slides about we have some slides about where we want to go or where we, where we think the draft on ahead. And what kind of, um. That I contain, but in the meantime, I kept the old slides in there, so we could buzz back through them. Just to make sure we're all on the same page and we'll get you up to speed. So, why are we talking about this? Not for our health. It's because the state is requiring us to. By October 1st, we have to adopt rules that will allow detached accessory dwelling units as permitted uses. Specifically, we have to allow them anywhere on lots of parcels that contain a single family dwelling or if it's permitted use on a parcel, and if that parcel is 11,000 square feet or larger. We can go smaller, but 11,000 is the smallest we can go. And meet the state code, so legal, not conforming homes in commercial zones, those wouldn't necessarily have to allow it. We can, if we want to. Multifamily units like town homes and things we don't have to allow, but we could, if we want. The parameters are pretty are pretty small. Um, the, there's a couple of shells start with those. It does. Say that we need to make sure they comply with building health and fire codes. So we'll certainly do that. That's easy enough to do. We have to also make sure that and allow that we would allow legally constructed accessory structure, like a detached garage. to be converted into a DADU if it can meet the setbacks in building and fire codes that we impose. So is this picture because it looks like it might have been in a garage or something at one time and been in a closed garage. So we need to allow for accessory structures to be converted. That's a big question. But we can make them meet new standards. We can have setback standards and height standards and things that they have to meet. Does that make sense? We cannot require a conditional use permit. They won't let us make them conditional. They're permitted uses. We cannot require setbacks from property lines or from a detached dwelling that make it unreasonably difficult to do this. So we can have setbacks, but we can't make them so egregious that we could just never make it work. I think that I used an example last week or not last week, but last meeting when we talked about in Murray's code, it's changed now. I looked it up the other day. In Murray, when I had a detached accessory dwelling unit code that we had to administer and the setbacks for detached accessory dwelling units had to be the same as the house. So if you had a house and you had a 25-foot backyard, you couldn't locate You had to be a certain distance rear of the house, but you also had to be 25 feet from that property. So, we had never processed the detached unit in Murray at that time. Now, there have smaller setbacks, so we can't be too too unreasonable about it, but we can have setbacks. We can we can require. or we can't sorry require more than two on-site parking spaces for a detached accessory dwelling unit that's 650 square feet or larger so we can only require two and we cannot require more than one if that dadu is less than 650 square feet We can require and we cannot require design standards that conflict with Section 102618. 102618 is the code, the state code that doesn't allow us to do what we call pretty codes in the day. We can't require certain materials. We can't require you to have a garage or a porch of a certain size or things like that. Pitched roof sits in. I agree with those. Um, so that makes sense. Those are things we can't do when we write this. We can require conformance to land use regulations for size and dimension and height and lot coverage. We can require that they be designed consistent with the primary dwelling. What that means is a little up for grabs. Like, we would assume the same kinds of materials or colors or.

Consistent is the language.

We can't prohibit a detached unit from being larger than the primary dwelling, from being located in a utility easement, from being located in a front yard area, or from being rented for less than 90 consecutive days. So as a therapy, we can restrict that if we want to. we did decide that you could change what is the existing yes what is the primary dwelling right so you could decide to build something bigger yeah that's a great point if you have grandma's old tiny house and it's way back some of these little tiny toolboxes were 15 feet back yeah an old farm lot and if you wanted to make that your adu build a big house in the front we don't care as long as one of them is the primary one is this one's the accessory and they're meeting the standards yeah

And we'll go back through what we discussed after we go and actually review again.

A lot of these come up again. I just want to make sure we're all still on the same page because a lot of folks want to hear the last discussion.

We're going to get there. You can always come back into this too.

We can limit heights and things like that. Right now, this is just that note underneath. Under our current residential zoning code, accessory structures, not dwelling units because we don't allow those as accessories yet, but Accessory structures like garages don't get to cover more than 8% of the total lot area, and they're limited to heights and have certain syntax requirements. So pretty normal to assume that we could buy things for attached accessory dwelling units. Same kind of things. We can also require the owner of the property to live in either the primary or accessory. We can require the replacement of any parking spaces that get eliminated if a detached garage gets converted into a DADU. We can require or prohibit more than one accessory dwelling unit on a single parcel. We don't have to say you can have a detached one and you can have an interior one as well. We can say you can only have one or the other. And we can prohibit a detached unit if the unit wouldn't have access to utilities or couldn't get them to it. We could prohibit one if the utility services just wouldn't have the capacity. I don't think that'll be the case. Most utility planning for the last... 10 years in the state has all when they when we hire that out to hands down and loose or whoever does it they've all assumed where we allow accessory apartments warren's been doing accessory apartments for a long time reasonably sure they've they've planned for those utility capacities okay um this brings us that that's up to speed on the last stuff one point on that yeah

If you have a sloped lot and the accessory unit can't attach the sewer because it slopes down to your bar, then we could prohibit... You could prohibit it.

It can't attach because... Yeah, that's the kind of thing that we can say. We'll do an assessment. We'll get to a slide here where I talk about that. I think we ought to have an assessment done of the capacity and the access for utilities. We would do that as a commission, as they are. Not as a commission, sorry, but as staff reviews, we would look at those kind of things and say, this isn't working. And somebody could theoretically then say, well, I want to build, I think they would do it, but I want to ask for a septic tank variance for my accessory dwelling unit. I don't know if it would bear out or not, but you could try. But for utilities that we have, if for some reason we can't service it, we don't have to allow it. It probably is unnecessary in some ways because meeting the building and occupancy standards require that you have couldn't just say well i'm going to build it so i'm going to build three bedrooms in a in a unit back there and just let people sleep in that and i'm going to rent them out that way and then they can use my kitchen they can use my bathrooms occupancy for a dwelling will require cooking bathroom facilities so if they can't service it won't be able to meet normal standards that we have to require anyway it's normal occupancy for normal human occupancy yeah um okay So a discussion of – I just like this picture of this person looking out the window at the drop, so I went to work in it. It's very bright. It feels very tropical. It's out of sync with the rest of it. So just some basic ideas for a draft. The first question on my mind is always where does this belong? And right now our code accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments, they're called in our code technically, are in Section 2269I. That's a section of regulations for specific types of uses. We can put it there. We can just add another section. It wouldn't make it J, but that means we've got to move everything back because right now it goes to A through N in that section, in that part of the article. Or we could do it as a whole entirely new section and just put accessory apartments and dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units in their own section. So that's something that I'm going to talk with Aaron McKnight about that and see where they'd like to see it or if there's some other thoughts about it, if you have.

Is there a disadvantage to making it an entirely new section?

I'd like it to be easy to find. No, exactly. That would be the best way.

And that's why I think there's going to be interest in this.

It's a little bit varied in the specific cases. The organization is a little, there's a lot of interesting things in that little section. So it gets a kind of a little, it's an odd corner of the basement, you know. These might deserve a more prominent location. Yeah. That's kind of the thinking. We'll go forward that way maybe and then make the other adjustments. Right now, we would propose for the – and this is – what this is is just my first shot at saying what ought to be in the draft. And we'll get to the last slide. We'll talk about when you want to see that draft. But right now, these are the things that I would include. But these are just starting points. So I want to tell you guys about what we ought to adjust going forward or how comfortable or uncomfortable we are.

And this is from our conversation. A lot of the things I'm hearing. Yeah. It's not like he's just, like, pointing his finger. This is exactly what we went over to read. There's some of it. There's some of it. There was some. You brought up some good points. So. Yeah, but most of it's the, like, I mean, for Jeff's purpose, after we had our discussion, we decided let's just stick with the 11,000 for right now and plan for that, especially because we have such a tight timeframe. So let's do that, see what happens.

You should be recognizing most of these from the conversation we had. But a couple of things came up as I'm thinking about it that we didn't really talk about. So I've just taken a shot at those, talked them over with Madeline, and here we are. We can all talk about it as a group and see if we're comfortable. The first one would be 11,000, like Madeline just said. 11,000 square feet, we're not proposing to go smaller than that. That meets the state code requirement. That would work. And we would say where zoning allows single-family detached dwellings. So on that non-conforming lot, we're going to respect the idea of legal non-conforming uses, which is you've been selected for extinction. We're not going to sock you in on that lot. We're hoping that eventually it becomes... Maybe a holiday station to ruin somebody's life or whatever else. It's supposed to move on, not get more entrenched as a residence, right? No DADU to be located between the primary dwelling and any street frontage, public or private. I looked at a lot of different codes. And some codes will allow them on corner sides, and some will not. Some say you must be located in the rear yard area. And on a corner side, you could still be in what somebody might view as a corner side, but you shouldn't be far enough from the street to be in that rear yard area. where you don't want it as out near the street, any street. And you certainly want it in a front yard area because the idea of this DADU concept is to not really have an impact on the feel or look of a neighborhood. So that seems to make sense to me. Does that kind of make sense?

You wouldn't allow it to be between the street. Looking at that picture that's up there. So that has a natural screen up to the right-hand side. If those trees weren't there and there happened to be a street running down there,

then it wouldn't be allowed.

That would not be allowed.

That would be a corner side, and it would have to be shifted over that direction.

But if you put a fence up and it were in that same spot, does that then... I'm just trying to understand kind of what the definition of...

I haven't written anything that carefully yet. So corner side all the way to the rear of the property line is defined, unless you scoot this over in back of the house, in back of that corner side, say back at 20 feet or 25 or whatever it might be, whatever zone. so that's kind of the thinking and you don't this would be considered under the way that i would write it broadly between this house and a street frontage okay that kind of ruins the look of yeah whatever you could put a fence up and then i didn't want to write anything that specific okay i just have to say because i live on a corner like that and it completely affects what i could do not that i'm going to do anything no no but it would impact yeah jeff

Just to confirm, if that were a home next to that, and there were no trees, what you're suggesting is that's fine. It's not a frontage to a road.

Well, maybe, maybe not, because we'll get to setbacks on another slide. But this appears to be pretty close to a setback. To a property, I'm sorry.

But if that was a quarter lot, and they had a detached garage, and they converted it, they'd still be allowed on a quarter lot? We're allowed to say you have to meet...

The standards that we impose. So if our standard says you can't be in a corner side yard and your detached garage is in the corner side yard, then you couldn't convert your detached garage. If we didn't write it that way and you had a detached garage, then yes, you could. That make sense? Good question. That's the kind of thing we need to sort out here is if it's screened and stuff, do we care if it's in a corner side? I've seen them both ways. A lot of codes prohibit anything between a street or near a street at all. And some codes allow it. I just think it looks funny when it's allowed.

two of them has like a big tough shed in the same location on a street what's the difference well a lot of a lot of codes actually prohibit your tough shed in that location too right now i'm curious i couldn't tell you off the top of my head i have to look the one thing to remember too is if we do have a soft edge like that one owner may keep it the other one may not then you have all that dwelling right there which is you're not very exiled setbacks yeah

That was another part of our discussion last time, extensively about the difference between putting somebody living in something near the edge of a lot and having a shed that just sits there and probably blocks the view of your neighbors.

Dwelling is fundamentally different.

Yeah.

And that's kind of the approach I've taken here to keep it simple and just meet state code is that a dwelling is different. Allowing it to be in that core site would be kind of a step in the direction of saying let's allow more of them than less of them.

I'm just curious, why is it different in terms of impact on the street or the neighbor? It's the same big structure in their way. Yeah, no, it's a good question. Yeah.

You could end up, and we've talked about this a little bit with double frontage lots. We'll get to those in a minute. But it could end up with a situation where if the road's going this way and the person has the setback, but then this little is your corner person living here, it's against the street for the neighbor next door behind you near the corner. That's hard to explain without drawing. But it could end up that it's sitting 10 feet from the sidewalk when everybody else on that road has a 25-foot setback. So if somebody living... awkwardly here in front of your back neighbor who's really around the corner.

I'm just arguing if we don't have that for a big shed, there is really no difference in terms of that impact on that other neighbor. We just want to be consistent with what we already have.

What you do is you put windows against their property, which is different than a tough shed.

On the corner side, I'll research whether we would allow that shed in the corner side or not. I'm not sure.

We are identifying things that we probably need to go and fix in other codes.

Well, making it up as we go.

But yeah, there's a couple of other things that we're going to have to take up after this because we went, oh, well, we need to get this through and then come back.

Some other questions are going to have another time because we'll make it by October. I'll make a note on that. We'll check it out. Jeff. It's a good point and good questions. Not allowed in addition to an internal works. We're starting with the default position of you get 1 of the other. Yeah, so they both we could always change that in the future and then assuming that they couldn't be used as an, but only because that's. What we would say right now, until unless and until the city makes it our stands for short term rental. Sorry. There are a lot of acronyms in my head. And you couldn't Airbnb it right now, because technically you can't Airbnb it. city rules. So if the city makes a change, then that would be a separate question we don't want to do. you're going to have to deal with it, but not right now. That will totally be the use case people will want. People will want it. Very much one of those things that's going to have to get answered.

Again, for the sugency of getting it passed, we just kind of say, this is the road right now. We'll get to the minute.

Start with easy and then change.

Definitely, definitely. We'll have to kick that can down the road anyway. You're going to see it. A few more basics. They wouldn't be allowed. I would propose not allowing them to have separate utility meters. That's pretty standard. That goes, again, in keeping with making them part of the existing residence and having an owner live in one or the other.

They're not accessory.

Minimizing the impact on the neighborhood. When you give them a separate meter, you just increase the chances that they lie to you about their residency and they rent out both places. So harder to do that when you don't let them separate meters.

But that used to be the law, right? You had to have a separate utility or that used to be the rule, I should say.

That's different for different things. But for a detached ADU, no.

But for an accessory.

For accessory structure.

Until four or five years ago, you had to have a separate entry and a separate meeting.

Separate entries and stuff. That's changed. That may have been a norm. I don't know. Most of the codes I've administered don't allow. They might allow a separate entry, but they don't allow separate metering usually. I'm not allowed to have external balconies. This will make more sense in a minute because we're we're proposing a single story like this simple lower structure. But if we allowed loft spaces, then somebody guaranteed some wing that will say I want to. Put a balcony on the outside that someone's going to crawl through a window out onto this balcony. I don't want to deal with that. So no external balconies. An existing accessory structure could be modified and converted to an ADU, but it has to meet the setbacks. Again, that's one of those mays. We can require that. We don't have to require that. I think that we should because the onslaught of people wanting to convert garages and things is going to be there. We ought to make sure they're meeting the same standards we're holding here. Not to be included in the minimum coverage, this is one of the things Matt was just alluding to. We started talking about impervious surface coverage. Right now we have an accessory structure coverage allowance of 8% for the lot area. That has worked. As Orem builds out and people put in accessory units and start to pave more of their yard areas, we will start to need to deal with the runoff that has not been planned for from these lots that you assume is a lot of it's covered with pervious surface that's taking, allowing infiltration of stormwater and everything just drains out to the street. The more of that that gets covered, we need to start worrying about that, but it's not only to do with accessory dwelling units. So right now we would propose saying, they don't count against you for that eight percent you have your shed and your garage it's attached you want to put your adu up great but in the future we need to be looking at you soon a lot coverage but we need more engineering engineering review and things like that to decide what that's going to be and they'll all have to fit into that so you might exclude yourself from having one if you have a giant workshop on your lot already It might not be possible for you to cite an ADU based on setbacks, and eventually it might not be possible for you to cite an ADU there if you're covering too much of your lot. Hasn't been an issue yet, but it could be in the future, so we want to start to address that. Now, we're also not proposing, or I'm not proposing right now, to require any matching materials that's consistent with the main house. I don't know where to draw the boundaries on that. This one is matched. Pretty well. It's quite adorable, right, if I may say so. This one is not as matched. So is this one offensive in any way? Do we want to require consistency? And then how do we, if we require it, I don't care. I don't have a lot of strong feelings one way or the other. I don't know about you guys. I just, I know if we require it, then we've got to make a value judgment when they come in and say, yes, this looks like this is consistent because it has a roof and windows. A fight waiting to happen. Yeah.

And what if you want to, you know, you want to build something and you want to transition to your new design. Right. You can't afford the design on everything. So you're going to start with the new. Why waste money making the new look like old?

And then, you know, so that's why this then we're going to upgrade this later to match that.

Right.

And that's that we'll get that immediately to the first six submittals will be like that. Guaranteed. So I just I agree. Being fundamentally averse to extra work that I don't need to do, I'm saying if we're not going to be able to really police it, let's not try. But if people feel differently about it, I'm open to suggestion. We just have to try to start setting parameters. I don't want to be the world's HOA. But we could require it, and it does result in kind of nice-looking stuff. So there's some merit there.

I think as long as we have main rules that we set out, The percentage of the lot and everything else plus, now going two-story, it's...

It should be unobtrusive. It should be fine. It shouldn't be seeing a lot, right, if we do it some of these ways. Next thing, size. We're allowed to limit the size. Now, we can't limit it more than... 650, we have to allow at least 650 square feet. Talking about this and looking at lots and typical home plans and a lot of different sizes for detached ADUs, for an 11,000 square foot lot, 850 square feet seems like a good base to me. For larger lots, you could go up to 1,000 square feet. That's pretty typical. A lot of cities are allowing them 1,000 square feet on 11,000 or even on 8,000 square foot lots. Larger lots, 1,200 square feet would be fine. On a big lot, you're not going to notice that anymore. We didn't feel like there was any need to go larger than that, even for super large lots, because it's still, again, the principle is this is accessory to the unit or to the main house. Again, in keeping with that, I would suggest 50% of the primary dwelling, no bigger than that. So if your house on your lot is a relatively small house and your house is 1,000 square feet, then you don't build an 850 square foot ADU.

So my daughter is building a barn to medium right now in... Lakeshore. Okay. And they have a five-acre lot. And they're building the barn and medium first to live in for the next 10 years. And then as their family grows, they're going to build a house someday. Sure. Anyway, so they have this big lot. And they went through lots of generations to get that thing to the county's limit of 1,500 square feet and just make it work. And I thought... What's really the point of putting a maximum? How does it really serve us? What if someone has a five-acre lot norm? and wants to build a 2,000-square-foot tattoo, why do we really care? Why cap that? We've met setbacks and stuff. What's the point of an arbitrary cap?

How does that serve us? In two senses, I think, that I would identify, and I'm not wedded to the idea necessarily, but in two ways. First, in that very broad sense that it needs to be accessory to the idea. So let's say the house is a 5,000-square-foot house or even a 10,000-square-foot house. A 2,000 square foot, if we're single story, 2,000 square feet is a significant footprint, even on a large lot, even a five acre lot. But even so, the number of bedrooms, for example, how many bedrooms are you going to put in a 5,000 or 2,000 square foot ADU? Because the other limit I would propose is bedroom units. Two bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms. This is supposed to be accessory. It's supposed to be If we wanted to, the second part, the thing that it serves, if you wanted to just allow additional density straight up in all the zones, Detached accessory dwelling units are not what you would do. You would just get rid of single-family zoning and say, if you have a certain size of lot, you get to build four units. And we don't care if they're detached or attached. You want to build a fourplex of something on it, go for it. This is Minneapolis, right? They've done this. If your size of your lot is what determines it, then that's what you do. They're not the way that anybody wants to go on that. Because the purpose of that large, large, large house or secondary unit is would be to accommodate, I don't know, four business or something like that. And that's simply not kind of the purpose of a detached accessory dwelling in it. That's another unit. If we want to do that, that's a whole other conversation. That's an abolishment of single family zoning, essentially. And the day may come when that's something that we're doing, but I don't think the DADU is where we're going to, where that doesn't make sense to me in DADU. It makes sense to me if we're saying your lot size determines how many units you get, period. It's accessory, what's private. That's where I would find that. Does that make any sense at all? So that's where I'm starting at. And then the other thing that's odd that I found cropping up in people's codes lately is a minimum, because some of these units are very small. Yeah, they're very small and 200 square feet. If you don't want it to be an absolute micro unit, there are people that would put up something the size of this table and rent it out to somebody as an IDU. 200 square feet ought to be kind of a base minimum that I've seen in the codes. To say it's at least you got to mean it. If you're going to do this, you don't buy a tough shed and say, we're putting people in this and renting it out for 2000 bucks a month. So that seems evil.

We have 200 because 200 is the national board. That's when at one point, the, once you hit 200 square feet, the international building code says, I don't, I don't, whatever it is you're building, because of your square footage, we want to see it.

We want to see it in the permit. Yeah, that's probably exactly right.

Making sure you can get inspectors in there and make sure there's actually toilets and sinks.

Yeah. You could do it. Even at 200 square feet, it's going to be a pretty micro unit, a studio unit, obviously. But yeah, that's good. Any questions about this? Does that make sense? Any concerns about it? And again, nothing is set in stone. This is what's going to serve... As the basis of drafting work this week.

Yeah, just, I mean, if there's any questions about where these numbers are coming from or what for the discussion, or if we are just good, we can move on.

Some things are set in stone. Some things are.

Yes. Okay. We'll come back to things. Height. Height has got to be limited for DA to use because of that whole conversation about keeping them unobtrusive. So I would propose single story, 20 feet to the highest point for anything with a pitched roof. And again, we've just recently adopted stuff that says what's pitched and what's flat. So we have a definition there. 20 foot for the highest point of pitched and 14 for anything with flat roofs. We could allow interior lofts. I included a picture of a nice loft here, which I thought was kind of nice. That lets people use that smaller space and maybe encourages them to do To keep the construction and the cost of it down, but still allow for more units. And then again, you get less obtrusion into the neighborhood or less disruption of what looks like a single family, but you get very livable spaces. Not allow the lofts to be exceeding 20% of the total floor space because sure as I'm sitting here, the first ADU that comes in will have a loft space that goes across 9% of the floor and you go up the ladder. Um, so not a second, not a second story aloft and not taller in any case than in the primary dwelling. So that there's not a difference there. Does that make sense for height or unless a good starting spot, a good starting place, not located for setbacks, not located in a front yard setback, like we talked about, or, um, uh, between a dwelling and a street. So you couldn't have one out here. Not located closer than 10 feet to any property line. Again, we looked at that first one, that soft kind of this here. This might be closer than 10 feet to a property line. So if these weren't here, it might be a little irritating to have that right on your property line or five feet off. 10 feet. creates enough of a buffer, I feel like, that it's a good standard. I've seen it in a lot of codes. And it creates enough of a space. 10 feet is kind of a standard landscaping buffer that you put from a commercial to a residential zone, so it makes sense. And then if you have 10 feet on both sides, or anything, then you get that 20 feet minimum from any dwelling on an adjacent lot. So what I'm saying there is, let's say that this dwelling unit here, this detached ADU, they wanted to locate it much closer to their house. It's like six feet behind their house. And this house is a little further back. Well, that would put this one too close to that dwelling unit. So having that additional separation of 20 feet from anybody's dwelling, that dwelling would include an accessory dwelling or a primary. So you get 20 feet between any units.

Is that including the primary dwelling unit on the lot itself or is it a six foot?

Oh, no, six foot from the primary dwelling. We're bumping it back ten.

I think it should be ten. That's my opinion.

I think six feet is too close. Six is an accessory unit or accessory structure. Ten could be for dwelling. Either one is reasonable to me. I don't think it's going to make or break anybody's lot. You want 10 for starters? Yeah, let's go 10. 10 it is. Okay. And then double frontage lots, Madeline mentioned earlier. Double frontage lots, we would suggest saying that you need to be located 25 feet from that frontage so that it feels like the same distance as the other homes on that that might be there with that double frontage lot. That would keep that from being a problem. Parking again, we're not allowed to require any more than 1 space for 650 square foot unit. So if we did 200 to 650 square feet at 1 space required, and then anything over 650 square feet, 2 spaces. 2 dedicated spaces, we want them to verify when they're turning in plans. We'd want them to verify 2 dedicated spaces for their home. primary dwelling and then to verify that they were replacing any parking that was lost in the creation of the dadu if they took out a garage a detached garage to do it so we get to we get to we get to require that i like this little picture of this outside balcony that's not accessible from anywhere but outside and that's single car garage this would be we couldn't do this because that's technically a second story All required parking has got to be located off street, clearly.

I don't understand what a dedicated space means. Could somebody park...

If your car is deep, there were space. Do we allow that? We allow. We have to because of state law. But what we mean is we want them to show us on the – what we really mean is you've got to show us on your site plan that you can park off the street this many cars. Yeah, four cars. Six cars, whatever it is. Not that you can't park on the street because you're going to be able to do that, but that people will come in and say, well, I'm not providing any parking for the ADU because I'm just going to park on – No, you've got to show us. When we're dedicated, that's what we mean. Show us where it is and that it's large enough.

And it's about a square feet for one car.

We have a standard to show somebody square feet and linear feet for a car. So if they can show us that dedication, then we can do it.

Just for clarification, so if they took their two-car garage and converted that. That's two parking spots they have to replace. And then they have, it's greater than 651 square feet, so they need two more. So they would have to throw four parking spots on them.

Is there any setback required for that, or can you park those two cars ranking in your 25, you know, in the amount of space between your current property and your...

That's a good question. No. Parking has to be provided to the rear for ADUs. In our current code right now for just internal ADUs, but assume we do the same for the detached ones, parking has to be provided to the rear of the primary. So you don't get to count the driveway space that's out in front of your house. Say, well, we park in the garage and the ADU people park in the driveway.

No, you all park somewhere behind the house. And it had to be on top.

Yes, it's got to be appropriate surface. No, no.

So, yeah, I think what the code says right now for ADU stalls is that they just need to be behind the front yard setback.

Like I have a side entry garage and I've got eight parking spots between, you know, and so I have at least four behind my front yard setback.

Okay. Yeah, that's the way it's written now. It's the setback, not the house, right?

Yeah. So that's what we want to do. What would we change the whole?

And are we going to have a distinction in location for ADU parking stalls versus like primary homeowner stalls?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I was giving that example, because you could still have a driveway right in front of your house for your primary ones, right? Right.

or unless that doesn't that does violate our setback and then you'd have to have the other two for the adu behind the house i'd have to look i'd have to look carefully but i believe that our parking standard says your driveway in your front setback cannot count for your primary dwellings parking requirement you have to have that setback I have to double-check. The code, as we learn every week afresh, is rife with little nooks and crannies that regulations are stuffed into them. And I know I've read that. So you don't get to say, for example, for your ADU, you can't say, well, my ADU people are parking in the garage and I'm parking in the driveway. I've got my four spots. In our current standard, that doesn't actually work.

Yeah, not to complicate it, but if somebody converts their garage into an internal unit and they lose those spots, where do they have to put, where does the house owner have to put their two spots? Right. So yes, probably can be checked out.

I'll research that and see if that's a good point. To confirm, you'd have to have enough space to drive around the house to park in the back or no go.

And again, just as we said when we had the first conversation a couple of weeks ago, I'll reiterate it. There are going to be lots where this will not work. There are going to be lots that just as they exist right now, because of the lot itself or the way that people have developed their lot, they're going to have excluded themselves without meaning to. And we, that's just, we won't be able to write around that. It's just the way it is. There are going to be lots where it doesn't work.

With parking, just remember, showing parking on a plan where it theoretically works doesn't mean people will actually use it.

It's like sidewalks and pathways and things. You can try to make people park.

Most of the ADUs, they build a 66th. Lot subdivision, XMI subdivision. Most of them are just right next to the two-car garage. They're just to the side. They just build the concrete right next to the side, and they park right next to the garage. So they're past the setback. You sell your RV, park your people in your RV. Yeah, but it's that side pad.

I was also going to say that's why we restricted it to 11,000 square feet lots and above, because at that point, you still have enough room to get around, where typically you could do something.

You're not going to have to have to fight with as many homeowners because the lot size is limited. That's a good point. Okay, but Emma, will you send me a note so I don't forget until the research time? Thank you. A couple of last things, and we've already talked about a couple of them. One ADU, again, just one ADU, either an ADU or a DADU on a property, owner occupancy required for them, required to meet applicable building safety and occupancy standards. That means that the building guys are going to look at it and the fire people are going to look at it and everything's going to be okay. And we require demonstration and approval of adequate public utility access and capacity.

that's where we're at now can we talk about timeline real quick before we yeah yeah i'm like how much more do we want to talk if we feel actually let's pause here have a second how good do we feel about this do we feel like this is what we want to go forward do we need any more discussion about this

I think this is just firming up what we discussed last time. It is.

Yeah, we're just reiterating it because drafting's next.

One question, obviously, is a future consideration, but some cities that are more mature in this have the concept of having approved plans and specs, making the process easy for everybody. I'm curious if you've thought about that as a future iteration. I've read some about that.

It's like if you're doing this, boom, it just goes right on.

Yeah, so it's like we've approved 11 types of structures, and so it just expedites everything. process for everybody. I think that's a future thing. I agree. I agree.

And I think it's something to consider.

It is.

Your life's a lot easier if it was a set. Yeah.

Probably I'm asking to see if we do want to make their life as less difficult as possible. The only reason I'm asking is if we need to adjourn and come back afterwards. But if we feel good about this, then let's talk about timeline and then

We'll draft it up this way and fill in any blanks and we'll bring it to you as a draft. I'm going to go ahead and notice a public hearing for July 15th. We'll get that set out. So we'll have our first public hearing on July 15th. And then if we needed to, we could go to August 5th without too much trepidation. But it's going to have to go through public hearing at council, too. They have to get noticed. And they'll only have one meeting available for us in August, which will be the 11th. And then I've got two in September. Probably need two with council. I'm guessing get them through those conversations that we've had.

Yeah.

And then October 1, it's got to be adopted. So if you guys are comfortable, that helps me out. But we'll get it noticed and we'll bring it back the first year.

What Jared's trying to say is we have until August 5th. Yeah. The August 5th meeting. Something will go to council from planning. It has to be. We should try to do the 15th.

Yeah. We have some margin for error.

The only margin of error we have is if we go on the next one. So I'm glad that everyone's comfortable because we'll crank it out and get it going.

And I think, really, unless we find something egregious when we read it or there's, like, major public comment that makes us go, okay, maybe we need to rethink something here, I don't think we'll.

It gives us enough time to adjust. I'm writing this. It's a better than 0% chance that you'll find something egregious.

But I'm going to do my best on this one. But, yeah, hopefully we can get it done on the 15th.

That would be great. Thanks for volunteering with me, guys. I really appreciate it.

Any further update on the meeting minute?

The flavor of the meter's meeting.

I can't find it, but we have all their documents in here.

I don't really need to know the specifics, just if there were any.

If there's any comments. If there were any comments. site a lot of the questions were in regard to how close the building would be to surrounding property lines and overall height of the structure um the answer being preliminary concepts currently reflect an approximate setback of about 50 feet conceptual height range anywhere between 40 of course that could change during the site when it wouldn't go up but if anything would go down um Questions asked about the overall length of the building. Concept currently indicates about 145 feet. Community members asked about how home build differs from other retailers such as Ace Hardware, Home Depot, Lowe's. Some questions about the ownership of the property, so there's some clarification there. They discussed construction timelines. And then there were some questions about parking and staffing. So how many employees would be coming to work and then how they would plan to park all the employees. Answer being employee parking is anticipated to be designated separately from primary customer parking. That that will be finalized in site plan approval. Making sure that they keep the existing state street sidewalk When is the, are they going to end up having to beef up the.

I thought that was built into the built into the concept. It's well, the PD.

Yes, but it's built into the PD and there's a position of 74, but then there's a portion. It's actually been done yet. Okay.

Questions about making sure that there is going to be a fence constructed along the backside of the property in order to. Yeah, which we will require that. where the loading dock would be located. So the loading dock on the back side of the building, which prompted questions about potential noise. So they discussed noise impacts from delivery trucks and Several attendees expressed appreciation for a sunken receiving bay. Okay, so it sounds like they're knocked down. And the wall, which they're hoping will help mitigate that noise. Definitely questions about exterior lightings, especially making sure that lighting on the back of the building won't affect the neighboring homes too much. And so basically just being that it'll have to be something that we... aware of that, but that'll be something that'll be fine-tuned through the site planning process. And then a lot of people are really happy about the abandoned building.

We will go ahead and adjourn to our regular meetings.

you

We're ready. There we are. Okay. We are ready to begin our planning commission meeting at 5.30 p.m. on July 1st, 2026 in the city council chambers. Before we begin tonight, I'd like to acknowledge that and thank Britton Renolfson for his service on the planning commission. As of today, he has resigned. So we will be getting a new commissioner in the near future. But we appreciate his service and his dedication and help. to helping improve ORM. We'll begin with an invocation by Jeff.

Thank you. Our dear Father in heaven, we're grateful to be here today and pray that we may conduct this meeting with a civility and friendship and an opportunity to hear the members of our city. And as we comment on important issues, we're grateful for this land we live in and for the opportunities that we have and for the country whose birthday we're going to celebrate here soon. Say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. Okay, we'll begin with item three, which is the consent agenda items. It's item 3.1, approval of the June 17th, 2026 minutes. And item 3.2, which is a plot amendment, Old Orchard Plot L, located approximately 457 East, 1500 North. Do we have any concerns or we can move to motion? Okay. Motion?

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

Okay. Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Carl moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the consent agenda items. Carl?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. We are, that is approved. Okay. Then we'll, we have no item four, so we will move to item 5.1, which is a public hearing for the Nieder's North Orem text amendment. It's a request to amend Appendix 00 by altering, altering, altering, wow, I can get this word out, altering the existing concept plan for the PD 53 zone located generally at 1890 North State Street. And Grace looks like she'll be doing our presentation today. Hi, yes.

Basically, this is a proposal for a text amendment, and we call it that, but it's not really the usual kind that we deal with when it comes to text amendments. We're dealing with a PD zone, and this one is basically around 1890 to 1990 north on State Street over there where the old Allen's was and where we have the kneaders there in front of it. Basically, the PD53 zone was approved in February of 2024, so Madeline can remember that. I was not here at that time, but basically that concept was approved, but now what they're doing is they're requesting to replace the current PD53 concept plan not the code itself. So let's just take a moment to look at what a PD zone requires. And first of all, it requires on the left hand side, the code. And that is simply almost like they're creating their own zone and the code that goes along with that zone. And that can vary dramatically from PD zone to PD zone. And then we have what's called the concept plan, which is something else that they need to provide, and it's put in the appendix. In this case, it was put in Appendix 00. Now, the code for this particular zone is actually quite similar to the C2 zone that we have in place. There are a few exceptions to that dealing with some of the heights, some of the setbacks, and so forth. But generally speaking, it is pretty close to what's required in that C2 zone. So you can see here on the right-hand side the concept plan that we currently have in Appendix 00. And what we're doing here is now I'm going to compare the concept plan that we currently have in that appendix and the proposed concept that they want to replace that with. So in the original concept, we had, if you look at the lovely red square there, in our current concept, those were office slash retail buildings that were three stories high that were proposed at that time and that were approved. But the owners have found that that's not quite viable and office space isn't as desirable now or as in demand as it was at that point. And so they've actually been brought to their attention a possibility for another type of space. And so now they're bringing forth this concept plan where the main change is in what is put there in that place. And if you see the proposed concept plan we have here, this building, it's a home improvement building of sorts, we'll just call it that, that would be in its place there. And also some of the things The other changes that you'll see here would be the way the parking is set up due to the different type of building that we have in place. You'll notice here we have this lovely square dotted line. It's light gray that you might see sort of in the back there that shows where the current building is right now. which is quite large. So the old Allreds, is that correct? Allens that was there, sorry. The old Allens that was there. And it was quite a large building and it was set very, very close to the lot line there in the back. And Over there, we've got a residential that was just really, really close actually to where that building was. So this new proposal will actually pull the building. Well, it won't be quite as large and we'll be pulling that building, of course, further away from the residential. And we will be dealing with some issues when it comes to height where they've designed that to help with that transition. The other buildings that we have here in orange on this proposed concept plan are pretty similar to what we had in the current concept plan. So, the biggest change that we have here is the way the parking is designed and this new building that's put in place of these 2. These 2 office buildings, so that's the main change. If we're looking at the code requirements of the PD 53 zone, then. One thing that they do address is the height and the height usually can be 48 feet high. If it's 100 feet from residential property, and they've designed this. So, and it's 35 feet high if it's 100 feet or less from residential. And so they've designed this. So you see on the right-hand side here the residential area. Of course, the height gradually increases so that we don't have any kind of buildings looming over these residents. That's one thing that they took careful consideration in when it came to this. And this is if we're viewing from the south, looking towards this building. All of the other structures, of course, also meet the height requirements that they have in place in the code. One of the other main key features is the parking requirements in that PD zone. And instead of one parking stall per every 250 square feet, which is what we have in C2, this is one parking stall per 255 square feet. Not a huge difference. Um, uh, so, and I'm not sure what the, the reasoning was for that, but we do also have a major bus stop right in front of this location. And so they might've felt like it was reasonable to, to, to do something like that.

But again, I was not there when they passed this. Um, I can weigh in on that. If I remember correctly, it was partly had to do with the fact that it was more office space and to get the number of spaces on the lot that that's, and it was close. I mean, 50. five feet. It makes a difference over a large number, but on what they were building, it was not.

Yeah. Yeah. That does make sense. In this case, based upon the calculation, because again, we're not changing the code itself. So we're going off of what was approved, which is one stall per 255 square feet. And if we're looking at that calculation, then 245 stalls would be required by but they have 277 stalls that they're calculating they would have there. So obviously they're meeting the demand and the need for that, even though they're not changing the code itself. Another thing of major consideration when it comes to this area is we're along State Street here. And the PD zone does basically follow the standards that we have in place for the architectural guidelines for State Street. It's going to look very similar to any other new development along State Street. And some of those requirements have to do with materials and 1 of the biggest ones is the 40% transparent windows on that 1st floor. And as you can see that 1st floor is, it's basically mostly windows. And so we're definitely meeting that requirement and the same with those other smaller buildings. They're very similar to what they were designed in the previous version of the concept plan. And so we don't see any kind of a conflict there going on. So those are some of the main issues. And of course, there were others. And so we had to go through and find detail and make sure that they were meeting the code that they already had in place. And we did that. And one thing that we did notice, of course, is when we have any kind of change along State Street, UDOT gets involved. And there is a slight change in use. I don't see it being a huge change, but whenever that happens, you know, they do need to go to UDOT and they do need to ask for a permit for that. And that permit has not been granted yet. So basically, we are suggesting that if you decide to move forward to approve it to continue on to City Council, that you would do so with the condition of UDOT's approval when it came to that particular thing. Are there any other questions you have about this particular text amendment? Sorry, my throat is like...

I have to turn my mic on. You've done great. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to come forward and...

My name is Dave Vincent. I'm with Kneader's Bakery. And then we have the home-built applicant as our proposed tenant as well to answer any questions around the business and things of that nature for you.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions from... Do you want to describe the home-built concept a little bit? Yeah, sure.

So my name is Patrick Prince. I run finance and planning for Homebuilt, which is a new company under the Clyde Company's umbrella. I've been working on this for a little bit over a year now. And what we were kind of posed with a few, I guess, a year ago now was If we were to change how home improvement and design shopping was done, how would we do that? So we spent about nine months doing customer research of serving 8,000 people, holding focus groups right here in Utah Valley of what's missing from your shopping experience right now and how could that be improved? And what we found is that big box stores like your Home Depots and your Lowe's take an hour to get in and out. And it's very difficult to find people when you're in there to help you. Smaller stores, you're not necessarily sure if they're going to have everything that you're looking for. So what we want to propose is a mid-sized store that is over-indexing on the support that we have available for our customers. So we're going to over-index on staffing. We're going to have accessible design services. So 20% of our 4Pin is actually a design showroom that we will have on-staff designers so that people can go in and get help redoing a bathroom or redoing your kitchen or picking a paint color that matches the carpets that you already have. Something that's out of reach for a lot of people right now, really tapping into the DIY culture that's really been developing over TikTok and Instagram and Pinterest. And what we're planning to do is open three locations in the next, call it 18 months and hoping to have the first one right here in Orem where the cloud company's headquarters is.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the explanation of this. So any other questions for applicant?

So concerns in the location placement, you know, Home Depot is what, three miles away. What were your considerations in Figuring out, you know, landing on this spot particularly.

Yeah. So this spot in particular, we looked at traffic patterns. We looked at, you know, all of the different areas in Utah Valley of where we wanted to be. We love the traffic patterns that we have. It is a few miles away from Home Depot, which we view as a plus. There's a good mix of older homes here that are going to need rejuvenation and things like that, along with people that are looking to improve the homes that they currently have. And we found a really great partner in Dave when we were looking to find out where could our first kind of flagship location be.

Thank you. Jeff?

Just wondering if you gathered any helpful public comment that either reinforced, validated what you're doing or caused you to change anything about your design or concept.

Are you talking about the entirety of this or for this location specifically?

This location, sorry.

Yeah, the public meeting. I obviously wasn't there and I haven't reviewed those notes. Yeah, so we had three people that joined. They were right here. I'd say that the main things we heard were really around lighting. So making sure that we don't have lighting that's protruding into the back windows. So that's something that we're definitely taking into consideration as we do our final designs. The other areas that they talked about were just where our loading dock is and what the noise suppression would be for that. We have a sunken loading dock along with a cement wall between the loading dock and the street so that there's ideally a lot of noise suppression there. And then one thing that we heard that I don't believe, it may have been from this meeting, it may have been from a different one, and it's something that we did change about the building is really we planned on having garage doors that were kind of always open on the back of the building. Now we're going to keep those closed just to suppress even more noise in the building and just taking into consideration that this is a neighborhood. We want to be good stewards of the land that we have and of the neighborhood and just making sure that we are limiting noise as much as possible.

Susan? So on the north side, I think, of the building, it showed when the picture came up that showed the front of the whole thing. You had Sun Pro on the north end. Does that mean you're going to be renting types of things? You're going to be renting out of there? So. anticipate with traffic and where you're storing those? Explain the Sun Pro element.

Yeah. So to answer the rental question, we're going to have small rental items. Like if you need to rent a power washer, we're not going to have skid steers or anything like that. We don't have the room to store any of that. And honestly, it's very expensive. The SunPro element, we are going to have a lumber component and SunPro is a sister company of ours and have a great lumber product. And it kind of adds instant credibility to our business. So we're going to have the SunPro name just in that they supply the lumber, the doors, the millwork that we're going to be selling out of our store.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other further questions for that? Thank you very much.

Yeah, no problem.

Okay. then we will go to public hearing. This is the time to open for the public. They would like to come forward and speak. If you could come to the mic, say your name and limit your comments to 30 minutes, three minutes. Sorry. Wow. I'm really just doing great tonight. Anyway, three minutes, three minutes, please. And we'll go ahead and open that to the public.

I'm Phil Greenland. I'd just like to know what the maximum heights of the buildings are and what the distance is from the residential property.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward?

Are we answering that question?

Oh, at the end of public comment. This is your time to speak, and then we will address.

Keith Walker. A couple questions I'm going to raise. You said you were going to put garage doors on the back of the building originally? Garage doors on the back of the building?

Sir, we have to do this so that it's all on the record and so it's on the mic. So just ask your question.

Garage doors on the back of the building is a question, number one. Number two... I don't know. When this was put in place, this development, you allowed more parking for these guys. You amended your State Street plan on the front end of State Street for this property for these guys to get more of that parking. Number three, I don't know that there's 200. First of all, originally, they were off on about 30 parking places. I don't want the exact number, but they were short about 30 of what they said they had. Now you're telling me they're going to 275. i doubt i haven't counted them yet but i doubt there's 275 in there they use they use the burrito place and neaters and the whole thing those are existing buildings that they use for parking the one thing i've asked repeatedly from them i would like to have a garage or have a gate put in the back of the property that borders my property, and I would still like to have that encouraged, and I would like to put that in the stipulations. I'm willing to be a part of it. I'm willing to help pay for it. I'm willing to do whatever, but I would like to have that done, and I've asked repeatedly from them. You talked about your Code 53. We haven't seen that since two years ago when they started it. We feel good about the Clyde, company coming, but there's still some concerns because Needers hasn't done anything in the last two years that they had their opportunity. So the parking's one, the UDO DOT permit, what the city gave in on code when they originally did it. Do you want to stick to your code you originally had two years ago? And I don't know what this PD 53 back to the zoning that it changed out for because we was trying to keep it commercial at that time. I'm not against the PD. I'm not necessarily against the project either. And Phil's answer to the depth and height was a concern and I'd like to see that addressed too. Thank you.

Laurel Barney, I live directly behind this project. Just a couple of questions on the building that will be on 2000 North. You were closing up one of the entrances to the property and making that So there's just three instead of four coming out that way. So question about parking and where are, where the entrance to the building is going to be? Is it going to be on 2000? That's a problem with the LDS temple up the street with this, with, uh, So many entrances and exits from Linden residents and places like there's just a lot of traffic. So will they be able to park on that? Can we get it red, you know, painted red? So there's no parking on 2000 North outside that building and will the entrances come from the parking lot versus again, 2000 North. And what kind of a fence will be between the residents

and the building itself thank you okay if there's no further comments then we will go ahead and close the public hearing That is a lot of questions. We will do our best to get back through them. Also, to be clear tonight, it's just about whether or not we are changing the zoning to allow this site plan. Some of this is, and correct me, Jared, if I'm wrong, but some of this will be worked out also in site plan when they come back through. Jared?

That's right. There'll be a site plan application that comes back for the planning commission again. Then some of those kinds of details do get hammered out there. The lighting will require a photometric plan that shows no light pollution and that kind of thing.

Okay. The applicant, first, before we get into the questions, the applicant, after hearing these comments, would you like to come forward and maybe answer what you can with

So I tried to jot these down in order and hoping to answer all of them.

So we'll see if we got it covered.

All right. So height and setback. So the height of the building right now is about 39 feet.

Mike, sorry, we have very sensitive mics. You've got to speak into the mic. This is our architect.

So the height of the building for home build is 39 feet. And the separation from the back property to the building is 46 feet. And then to that 39, so the building steps in the back, as we saw in that first rendering. And when you get to the taller part of the building at 49 feet, it's actually 90 feet more back from that 45.

Can you go back to the picture? Yeah. Yeah.

Sorry.

Because I'm pretty sure you have a 48-foot height limit.

So if you see where it says 39 foot 11 and 7 eighths, that's the tallest part of the building. And from there, we're... We're... A hundred and... eight or five feet back from the backside of the building. So we're about 150 feet from the fence line, property line to that high portion of the building.

Okay. So for reclarification from the back line, property line to the start of the building is how many feet?

46 feet.

46 feet. And then that will, the height there will be

Sorry, I can't read it. Oh, you've got 31, but we've got.

We've got 31 at the smallest, but.

So it's less than 31.7. Yes, the 31 is all I can see, so. I'll see if it calls it out here.

And then over the next bit of feet, it will go up past the 100 feet to the.

So that back of the building is like 23 foot 10. Okay.

Okay.

46 feet from the property line to the back of the building. 46 feet.

Yep. Okay. And then there's a question about garage doors in the back. I can take that one.

So this is just about why there's garage doors. Oh, yeah.

So if you go down to the front of the building, I think it might help illustrate this. So on the left-hand side where the SunPro is, there's two garage doors on the front of the building. Now, what we have there is a drive-through lumber area. What you see in a lot of home improvement stores is either people have to go in, load up a trolley, navigate the store and get out with 16-foot pieces of lumber, or they come out and they stock their truck, they park outside, and they're loading it in front. What we wanted to do was make a more seamless experience. So you drive in. We're going to load up your truck for you with whatever lumber you need. And really, this is a retail hardware store. It's not a lumber yard. So people aren't going to be coming in and getting pallets of lumber. They're going to be coming in and getting the six two-by-fours they forgot while they're at lunch. We're going to load it up for you so you don't have to navigate the store. We'll keep the garage doors closed most of the time. And really, it's just the service customers that are coming in. Likely, they're calling ahead. So they'll drive in through here and then exit out the rear of the building. That's the garage doors that I was referencing. Okay.

Next, and several questions had to do with parking. So I'm trying to get the parking ones. The amended parking for it, the number of parking spots that were listed on there. Again, this is not the final site plan that have you guys figured. I mean, clearly, you know how many parking stalls you're intending to put in, which is I mean, you could do the math as per 277 probably equals...

I just quickly added them up again. We're at 277, so... Jared, did you... Oh, sorry.

Sorry, I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind the slight reduction in the parking requirement is obviously that it's a shopping center of some kind and you have synergy between the different uses. And yeah, there's parking that's counted at the neaters and at the other existing buildings, but They're not always going to be using all of their parking, and there's going to be cross-parking between people. You hope that. If you're a guy that runs a shopping center or has one, you hope that someone comes to Homebuilt and has their lunch at Neater's. That's what everybody wants is the cross-connection.

And I think the requirement, if you go back to that slide, this requirement has each one of those buildings. So it's not just... You know, there's the home build, there's the neaters, all of those have square footage that are built into this, and then that ratio is applied based on the total. Yeah, so it's shared parking, but it's still meeting the requirement of the square footage, if I'm not mistaken. Yes.

Yeah. That's correct. You have to unmute your phone. That's correct. Thank you, Grace. The next one was there was a question about the entrance in 2000, and we're basically going from four to three. And some of that, if I remember from when we discussed this like two and a half years ago, was a lot of that had to do with making sure that it was safe for ingress and egress on to 2000.

Correct. It was one of the requests and something that we were – it actually helps the overall design of the site plan as well. So it makes it flow better, keeps the easement across the property intact. Entrances to the building will be from the parking side, not from 2000 North. Yeah.

So the intention is to orient it towards State Street and have people enter. Most people will enter and leave from State.

Yeah. In fact, there's actually a drive-through along the backside there along 2000 North that would prevent entrances. Coming in, coming in from that side on 2000 North.

Okay. And there was also a question about red striping along.

I remember, right. I think that's actually something that got put into the PD zone code and we have no objection to red striping along that, that section.

Because, yeah, it's a hard place there.

I don't think there's actually even physically room for a car to park there without it going into the lane. But, yeah, that's not something we would object to. I think it's in the code already.

Yeah, and that's the city that's going to do that, not the applicant, right?

Jeff, did you have something? Okay. And then there were a couple of fence-related questions. What kind of fence is going to go in, height, et cetera? And then...

I believe that's already in the code as well. And if I remember right, it's a masonry fence. The only detail I can't remember if it's six or eight feet.

I'd assume it's six. But can we go back to...

It's a minimum of seven. That's what's required between any kind of residential and any kind of commercial zone. And that's just standard. And so any kind of C2 zone or anything of that nature would have that. And since this basically says we... We follow everything with C2 unless it's changed in our PD zone. They therefore have to follow that.

Yeah.

Okay. And then there's the individual who was talking about wanting a gate. That is for you guys to face.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think that's how we can move into the plan.

Yeah. And that's beyond our purview here in making a decision tonight. But just reiterate it. You can talk with him again.

Follow up. Okay.

I think that was every question I wrote down. Does everyone? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it. OK, so, again, the item that's before us tonight is rather not to allow the the the to amend Appendix 00, which every time I say is I still feel I do have a question that I just in response to some other questions that they had.

OK, I think that they there was some confusion as to the code and and it being changed back. To what it was previously, because it had been so long since anything had been done here. This is basically what we're doing is we're asking to change a concept plan. The code itself has not changed in any way.

Yeah, because there's no request to make any changes to the code. It's literally the concept plan.

That's correct. Which follows the code.

And that's a good clarification, because as I was saying, we're just being asked to amend this concept. with this layout now, and then the specifics will be done in site plan.

That's correct.

So again, the item that's before us as the planning commission is whether or not to allow this concept plan to be changed. It's our turn to speak. So thoughts, ideas, comments.

Susan? I was just going to say, I really like the idea of being able to drive my car in and have them load the lumber. Genius. Thank you.

Any concerns about the site plan? I mean, this concept plan?

I think it sounds like they've been very thoughtful about it. And it sounds like they're addressing people's concerns to it. And it seems like it's a reasonable compromise. I appreciate the fact that that empty building that has been sitting for so long is finally going to have something done to it i can't imagine that that's not been it without its own challenges to have that for a variety of issues so i can't see a reason why we would vote no on this because i think all of the concerns seem to have been addressed as far as i can tell okay carl

I was just going to say, I need to disclose, Mrs. Barney, I'm familiar with the Barney family, my Carolee and John. But it won't affect my decision.

Good to know. Thank you. Any other comments?

Can I make one?

I have a comment that's closed right now. Well, you can talk with them afterwards. This is for us right now. That is between you and them, sir. That is not something we have control over right now. The specifics. So anything you'd like to say or would you like to make a motion? Okay.

I move that the Planning Commission move forward a recommendation of approval to the Orem City Council for the request to amend Appendix 00 or 00 of the Orem City Code adopting the new proposed concept plan for the PD-53 zone located generally at 1980 North State Street, approximately 5.39 acres, conditioned upon approval from the Utah Department of Transportation.

Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Susan? Okay, so Micah moved and Susan seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval to the city council with the condition that with approval from ODOT. Anyone else wants to say anything or are we good to go?

Okay. All right.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Item 5.1 is approved and we'll move forward to City Council and they will take it up at some point in the near future. And I would come back and for those who have further questions or concerns to address it with City Council as well.

It's scheduled to go to the Municipal Council July 14th.

14th. Okay. So it'll be on the July 14th meeting for City Council. Okay.

Does it come back to you for the leave plan?

The site plan hasn't been, sorry, the site plan hasn't been submitted yet. It'll be noticed the same way because it's adjacent to residential. So we'll send neighbor notices on there.

Okay.

And then, sir, can we leave questions until after we're done? We're almost done, and then you can ask your questions.

I'll find you.

Yeah, he'll find you. Excuse me, sir. But this is a public meeting. This is our time to deal with this. And your questions that you're asking are things that could be taken care of after the meeting. They have not deal with us as a planning commission. We are literally about to adjourn. And we just need two more minutes. Then you're welcome to speak with whoever afterwards. Gary, anything before we adjourn?

Yes, and it's actually not an Orem item or issue, but just one of the biggest projects that's around that people are talking about is something that has been proposed in Provo up the canyon, a 20,000-seat amphitheater. That, in its process, went to the Provo Planning Commission. They've recommended to the Provo Municipal Council not to make any changes to the code for on this project they voted five to two for that it still will go to the Provo Municipal Council and they can adopt, reject, or modify that recommendation. So that's where that stands. I get a lot of questions from people. It's not a project where we have any direct responsibility or purview for dealing with it, though going up the canyon, it would affect Orem and some of Orem's property and things in the area. So just giving you an update on that since so many people asked me about it, even though it's not technically Orem City or dealing with that.

But it's literally on our doorstep.

Exactly. And so if you have any questions or something, feel free to talk to me afterwards. But just wanted to give you that heads up.

Thank you. Okay. Without any further business, motion to adjourn? I motion that we adjourn.

I second.

Susan moved and Carl seconded that we adjourn. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay. We are adjourned at 6 0 7 PM. Thank you.