Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Rebecca, can you hear me? This is Carl. I can't hear you, but I think you can hear me.

work session of the warm city planning commission to order at 4 34 p.m on september 2nd 2026 in the city council conference room and we will do some agenda discussion and then updates

Why don't we now, if we could, let's start with, um, just a quick go through the agenda to make sure everyone's on the same page. And if anybody has any questions, we can try to answer them real quick in a free meeting here. So, on the agenda tonight, we have a couple of different things for Knox and the plan amendment that plan amendment is to serve a site plan. It's also on the agenda tonight site, but for Knox. Any questions about those 2 items, the agenda. they're basically combining a couple of lots make one lot that can make an addition to existing building then also the funes preliminary subdivision is on the agenda it's splitting a lot so it seems really simple but it can't be an amendment because it creates a new lot so it's got to be a full subdivision prelim they're both just re home sites it'll keep one home and make another lot that you can build on questions about that one i do have a question on that one sure and i drove by there's a big power line that splits that right yeah

Is that a problem to build directly under a power line?

Well, to build under it might be a challenge for them for easements. I wasn't aware of that.

Yeah, it's like right down the middle.

Yeah, I noticed that from the street view and the aerial views.

So just FYI, I don't know if that's something that needs to be addressed.

They won't be able to build under it.

That's what I assumed, but I wasn't sure.

The point is this, but it also does not. Yeah, there's a, that's the setback line. So just FYI, we did not show a, an easement for that in there.

So, it's good cash, but that's something that we would need to discuss as part of this meeting or is that. It is.

We can ask them about it tonight. I mean, you could ostensibly still build on the lot if you subdivide it. Subdividing it doesn't erase that easement or whatever power line easement is there. It doesn't impact that.

But they can't have any structure underneath it.

You can sometimes get the power line to agree to do that kind of thing, but it's not likely. uh the power company won't use those to build underneath the other problem is you can't finance a house generally they won't finance a house if there's power lines going over the top of it whether you can build it or not you can't get financing for it generally we can we can do it there's a couple of ways as a commission you could deal with that tonight you can and i would probably recommend the yes because there's that power line there we're not sure it wasn't treated in the um In the review, they didn't show it on their plat on their preliminary. We should probably, you could approve the preliminary with the condition that that be added to the final plat. So it's part of it and called out. Or you could say, we're going to table it and bring it back.

What's your preference? What's the typical.

Either either way works because it's got to go through final anyway. And with with the not showing, we'll want that shown on the final. Um, it'll have to show on the plat. So this is when you're supposed to catch these kinds of things at a preliminary. So.

So you'd say approve with condition of easement for the showing the easement or.

figuring out what's going on with that but i'm also not there's no rush on this you could easily just send it back see we need a couple more weeks we'll bring it back on the 16th um have them show that on the preliminary and correct it so if you want to table it with direction for us to get that shown on the platform or understand what's going on with that that's perfectly fine okay but that didn't have to be me it can be anyone sounds like a nice solution

No, I saw the same thing when I was looking at that property. I knew that it was way inside that property line instead of going right down the property line border.

Yeah, it looks like it's further than the normal 10 feet you might expect or something that's going to inhibit there.

So does it make it easier on the applicant if it's approved conditionally versus...

Yeah, about two weeks. It really doesn't in this case because they'll have to deal with it. Whether they deal with it now or they deal with it and then go to final, it's going to be the same because it's going to take them a couple of weeks to figure out why their engineer did not show that on the plant. Well, I'm happy to, if you want to table it, table it, and we'll figure that out. Now, if the applicants here tonight can explain what's going on and you feel comfortable then saying, okay, we'll approve a conditional to the final, showing all this appropriately, then that's great too. I don't know that they'll be here tonight or not. This was Grace's project and she's out of the office unexpectedly. So I'm not sure.

Well, let's see what the applicant has to say.

Yeah. If the applicants here tonight can explain it. If not, then I would probably recommend that you table it and we'll correct it and bring it back. It's a couple of weeks.

Can I jump back to Fort Knox? Sure. I love that title. So when I drove by, it seemed like, I guess I just have a question about parking.

Sure.

And their spaces, I could not park my car in, and I'm not a truck. They're super narrow. How is that? I just want a general overview.

We do have a standard. They should be 9 by 18. In some cases, 9 by 20. So if they're not 9 feet wide, that's a challenge. They should be 9 feet wide.

There were several that were smaller, and just whether the property line is on the north side of that. I know they have an agreement with their neighbors to the north. Yes. I was just interested that they have a fence there, and I don't know how they're going to get the parking they need on that, because there were trucks parked everywhere, and they're big trucks, right? Yeah.

And that's 1 of those things that they, I mean, the conditions currently, this additional change all of that. That'll make the fence come down and. Perpetuate the moving of the trucks and all that kind of thing.

Okay.

That should that should all be fine.

I don't have a way to, um.

Other than to bring it up and say, are these all going to be moved this.

And I guess I actually knew this, but something that. We require a certain number of places, parking spots painted on, and then whatever they do with them is fine, or should we be concerned about that?

If they're striped for parking, they should be for parking. Like, for example, where these overhead doors are, we don't allow them to show parking because you can't park in front of the overhead door and counter it.

Every one of those doors had cars parked in front of them.

Right, and they shouldn't. That's a different problem than the site plan. That's an enforcement kind of a thing.

Yes, okay.

A lot of those kind of situations, police themselves, tenants get mad that there's not parking, et cetera. When we have really serious parking problems on commercial properties, we have zoning enforcement to do on that. That's the only way. Okay. Yeah, this is that property that we had to get an agreement.

That's why it looks so tight.

Yep. It looks real tight because that fence left.

Tight.

That's a good question. Thank you. Any other questions about Fort Knox?

Besides how to get in?

Yeah.

then funes we did um home built also on the site plan for home built is on the agenda tonight it's also in your updates i wanted to update you all that um that home that the needers north pd change had been approved by the council and then i did that made a slide and went oh that's lame with me it's already on the agenda tonight site plan they'll know that pretty soon anyway but still on your update so act surprised for me make me feel good but yeah it's been approved the site plans on the agenda tonight any questions about that one We need that we, you know, you might have questions, but questions that we need to address before we go to the public meeting. Thank you.

So I have a question about it. The one that I brought up, the DRC, they decide that they're going to.

Do the plaque that we, I've been, we'll talk to them about that yet. Okay. So that's all going to be still, it's still. Conditional enough to be conditioned upon the. And then I'll just have to. They decide what they wanted that and we have to make this or is that something we can go to the plan and show you what we're talking about. It's a great point there and thank you for bringing that up. So, at home built. They were doing they had originally decided to do a plan and home that was going to purchase the lot that the building is going on. Then they decided it's going to be a long term ground lease. Right. So they're going to build the building and it's going to be long term ground lease. But the agreement, the shared parking agreement references lots in the suburbs and they had been planning. So either they got to change the shared parking agreement. to reflect the current situation or they've got to follow through with the plat and record it anyway even though they don't really need it because they're going to allow we said it won't matter it's it's a six of one or half of the other because they're going to either they long-term ground lease part of this larger property or the long-term ground lease the lot that they were going to buy in the first place from leaders so it's all the same but they just have to decide which method they want to do the document that they prepared was based on the plat so now the document doesn't match the The situation, because the plat is not going to be. So we need to prove it condition conditioned upon either a change to the document. Or to reflect the current situation or a chain or the filing of the.

Yeah, parking agreement or filing the condition, but so there's a parking easement agreement and either that needs to be updated to reflect what it currently show. Right? The current status.

Yeah.

Or it needs to be filed together with flat.

Just making sure I'm down what needs to be said.

Perfect. And that's why I wanted to bring it up because it's kind of a weird one.

It's simple, but it's hard to say. Some recent articulate, but it's basically just the, they need to match. And right now that's the plan. You didn't bring forward the plat, the amended plat, because they decided not to want to do that. It's easy enough to do bring back next meeting. Just up to them.

Okay.

Any other questions appreciate her and bring that up. That helps understandable makes it makes it more understandable. The, um, that's the other thing on the agenda is. All these slides are the same. I'm sorry. The other thing on the agenda is the public hearing for the sign ordinance text amendment regarding legal non-performing signs of this project. Any questions about that? Sign ordinance is a separate ordinance. Article 14?

Yeah, it's Chapter 14 of our city code, whereas it's also Chapter 22. Yeah.

Sony 22, this is 14, but it's where our sign ordinance resides, and this is for specifically people not conforming signs. The reporting was pretty clear, but if anything didn't make sense, let us know.

You said there were only about seven. There's only seven, because this amendment would only apply to freestanding poll signs that are legal, non-conforming, that are on the west side of I-15, and are oriented toward freeway traffic. I did a little trip down Google Maps. And so it doesn't include billboards because they aren't freestanding poll signs. But yeah, there are only seven signs.

Our legal non-conforming rules for signs are pretty tight. You don't get to make many modifications. We allow, for example, legal non-conforming residential structures in residential zones. You can add on to, modify it, and such. But a legal non-conforming sign in a correct sign zone is just, you can change it from saying Bob's coffee to Sam's coffee, but that's about it. Other than that, it's kind of complex.

Jared, can I ask a question about this one? Sure. Is the look of the sign, either old or new, relevant at all to this decision?

No. Not really. I mean, there are going to be people who like the old-looking sign. I mean, whether it's... For what they've written, no. They haven't taken that into account at all. But maybe...

I guess my question is just in the spirit of constantly improving the quality of our visual space. I can't tell from the staff report if this is an improvement or not.

And again, it depends on your point of view.

The reason why it's being applied for is because any sign you have that you can see from I-15 is obviously a really valuable thing. And in order to change the faceplate they have currently or change the cabinet they have currently, because it is sort of dilapidated, they would need to bring it into compliance, which would make it too short to be seen from freeway traffic. So as far as like, is the sign old enough? Yes. About three total of the seven signs I looked at are pretty old and not looking awesome, but four of them look beautiful. This amendment, if it went into effect, would apply whether the sign looked old or beautiful. Does that answer the question?

And you can upkeep signs under the current rules. They could refurbish this sign. They could burnish it and make it look better and change the faceplates out. But it's got to maintain that sort of beehive octagon weird shape. That's what they don't like. So they're not trying to increase the size or increase the height. They just want to make it a newer square cabinet.

And we have no visuals as to what they would like. We do, actually.

Yeah, I have them.

Are we going to be able to see them?

I can put them on the slides a few times.

I guess what I'm wondering is, should that influence the jury?

That's sort of why I held off because I didn't want to give the impression that this was applying to only this one sign. But I have the pictures of all seven signs. That's something for you.

And that's why I say it's kind of a matter of whether it's an improvement or not is kind of a matter of distinction personally. Because some people are going to say the new sign is boring, where the old sign is really interesting to keep or whatever. You know, there's no accounting for taste.

Is the difference a height issue that they're concerned with? That if they change it out, it's going to be short?

If they change it out, we're not able to permit them to do a sign permit to change the cabinet unless they bring it fully into compliance with current sign code, which would require them to cut the sign's height by... Or move it way back on the lot.

Yeah.

So can I ask a question? As I drive down I-15 and I see those humongous, ugly billboards, why is that okay? And I know that they're two separate things.

Can I ask a go-along question before we pass it over to Erin? For sure. It's billboards, and billboards are special. What is the height that these are compared to the billboards that are...

That's a good question. These are around, so this sign in particular is 54 feet 9 inches tall. The others are around there in the 50-60 range. I'm not sure exactly how tall the billboards are. I didn't have permit plans for them. I think so. But yeah, just from throwing around, they're similar in height. They're similar to the billboards.

They're a tenth of the size. Yeah.

Yeah. And that's, yeah. Well, that goes to visual impact.

I feel about the billboards. Aaron, would you like to talk about billboards?

Yeah. I won't do that. Okay. No, just because it's not opinions. You do want me to do that or you don't? Well, I think we need to know all the information.

Okay. Well, um,

Once again, these are not billboards. They're separate rules here, but you need to understand billboards because we haven't dealt with them yet.

Billboards have a lobby and so special state rules apply to them and there are certain circumstances under which we have to allow them even though we don't want to. I mean, that's the long and the short, right?

They have more power than the legislature themselves.

Well, all I can say, since I moved here five years ago, it's the biggest eyesore about Utah is the billboards. They don't even get me started on the plastic surgery billboards.

Our non-conforming rules don't get to apply. I think a lot of people feel that way, but the state legislature doesn't.

Interesting. Okay.

You never know.

Our hands are tied.

The billboards, absolutely. Nothing that you do here will affect them. Right.

I did not come here to do that. It's good to be aware. The billboards are different and treated differently. These poll signs, we do have

Ordinances for, and we have already decided on lots of times or make recommendations.

So I didn't invoke billboards. So it's not my fault that I'm going to say this. Sorry. I can't be punished for saying lots of times in my experience, the billboard companies, we tiptoe around some things like this. Because you've already done the billboard. You're going to be mad. It's just one, if a client has, if there's a property that has good freeway oriented signs, that's just one less client for their billboards that they have in the area. And they get irritated sometimes when they see things that look like the competition to them, even when it's on-premise signage that they have. They don't want anyone to have freeway oriented on-premise signage. They want to be the only people on the freeway.

Gotcha. So back to the sign question. Aaron says yes.

That's how they are.

Well, I was going to add, having said that, you know, where the current status of the signs is legal nonconforming, usually legal nonconforming is a way for us to kind of slowly phase things out, right? So that once a sign is just so bad that they just have to tear it down, that's it, and it's gone, and we've decided as a city, you know, we don't want those anymore. And so this is kind of a step in the direction of, In the opposite direction of that.

The challenge, and that's 110% correct. What do I always say? They've been selected for extinction, right? The non-conforming ones have been selected for extinction. The problem with these is, or as I see it, The challenge with these, or the thing that makes them more complicated, is that they are so valuable, like Emma said. When you have freeway-oriented signage and you're a business, it's enormously valuable. So they will let it run down to where it's about to fall off and we have to declare it dangerous to people or whatever. It won't run down normally. They will keep them until, hold on to them like grim death. So we might as well let them fix them up a little bit because they're going to stay forever.

And those signs are right next to you.

So they've got to be up high enough people can see them. And I guess that's the other thing. Because I'm going to have to explain something before I ask my question. You have to understand our sign ordinances is based in like A through E or something like that. There's some different signs get different things in different parts of the state. Yeah, there's different sign zones. The question is why we couldn't create another little tiny sign zone for that little slice right down I-15 on the west side that needs a different height than the other ones as opposed to

All intents and purposes, this kind of does that without using the actual zone, right? Because it describes that area so specifically.

Well, and doing that would be another way to do it. But that would also open it up for new signs. This is simply allowing the ones that are already there to keep themselves up better. So I think in opening it up, you would be kind of reversing course on... You'd truly be reversing course and saying, we're okay with freeway-oriented signs. We're not really saying that. We're saying...

You got it. Let's let you make it nice. That's fine. But it's part of just discussing through some of.

And we're not saying it almost as yes. Co and Alamo are saying it just so, you know, we didn't listen to us. Be clear. This isn't a staff. Proposed deal. It's Emma's been processing it, but it came, the application came from Alamo through yes. Co signs. Okay. I shouldn't say that. Gotcha. Yeah.

Another thing to keep in mind, and this is, I mean, obviously we can talk about this in the official meeting, but there is like a grade differential that they bring up with I-15 where signs on that west side, like the grade is lower than it is on the east side. I'm not describing that right. So a sign would need to be taller in order to be able to be seen. Exactly. They address that in sign zones E and F, which do have like freeway frontage, but not in sign zone B, which is where all of these non-conforming signs are. So sign zones E and F, and again, I have this in the slides, they allow them to go up to like 25 feet freeway grade or 55 feet of a freeway grade, whereas sign zone B, you can't be taller than 25 feet from grade grade, no matter what. So it was a little interesting.

So, Emma accidentally became our sign expert this week.

There you go. Good thing to know.

Don't be good at something you don't want to do. Okay, any other questions? I'll be quiet.

All right. Well, you have updating.

Oh, updating. So, and I want to leave plenty of time for whatever you want. Just some quick updates. Like I said, Needers North was approved by the council on the 14th of July. So was the city's request to change the zoning from PF to R8 at 360 West, 15 North South. So we're moving forward looking at subdivisions for that now. You'll see that in the future. And then Westerly Way, I don't know if I mentioned to you guys or not, that Westerly Way was approved by the Council. That happened on the 28th of July. They finally did the road out to Geneva.

Which I will just say, having seen the whole process, that the Planning Commission's intervention in that was critical to the outcome. Thank you.

It really helped. It was great. It took a while for them to come around and do it, but they did the road, and now they can build subdivisions. So these things will come back to you as subdivisions. You've seen a home built tonight. Eventually, you'll see a subdivision, hopefully, from the city on this property, and here you'll see a subdivision and site plan for multifamily because technically they're twin homes, so they're attached. We'll do 2 for that 2 other things to be aware of the detachment sister going into moving forward. We're going to be looking at a work session environment with the council 1 more time and then scheduling a public hearing for the 22nd of. What month are we in September to be that October deadline? I think we're there after the mini meetings. I think we're going to be able to get a consensus and get an ordinance adopted. 95%. And then the general plan, what's that? What happens if we don't, if we didn't adopt by October 1st, then the state code. Drops into place and it says thou shall allow. Detach the accessory dwelling units on any lot that's 11,000 square feet in written zone for residential structures. And it gives no guidance as to size or height or setbacks at all. So, we'd want to get something that was very good at centers. We want to have something October 1st. Anything anything at all. I'll take anything.

Yeah.

Okay. Take any numbers that we can get on October 1st, the general plan update. We're still working on. We're planning on bringing some, some material to you all in September and to the council in September and work sessions and still working on that timeline. So I'm working on that and we're going to see what we can put together for you for. Late September, and then just to be aware, Matt is working with the. Transportation Advisory Commission on an active travel plan. The plan itself is not ready for prime time, but the map needs to be updated, and the map is ready, and the TAC moved it on to the Planning Commission, so you'll see that soon. Don't have a date for it for certain yet, but we're working on that. It'll either be late September or early in October.

What's the active travel plan? That is a great question.

Active travel refers to. Any way to move around the city with our vehicle. So walking and biking. Wheelchairs scooters scooters for you.

Oh, yeah. That I do used to do things.

So that'll be coming to you all too. And it'll only be the map, but now we'll explain they're all in.

It'll be great.

Okay. And that's what I have for updates.

Okay. Quinn wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Vesper.

Sure. I just wanted to make sure that planning commission was in the loop on some things that the state councils reactively. Engaged on. You, I think, should all be aware that there's a development proposal at Provo Canyon called Vesper for a 20,000-seat amphitheater. I was killed. What's that? They killed that. I'll give you the update. That's okay. Definitely not. Yeah. We have been involved in that process to some extent, although that site is not within our own boundaries and so we do not have any municipal vote on it. On the Provo side, they've had a number of presentations from the developers, work sessions and other things. They were considering Potentially bringing something, maybe like an early rezone to a vote in next week's City Council session. I think from their agenda packet that they have continued it and postponed it based on what I can tell from the Provo City website. But we were waiting for that information today. The Provo City Council is split on it. There is the potential for a majority vote on the Provo City Council, but there's some uncertainty as to where some city councilors lie. The mayor is very much in favor of it. And the key logic on the Provo side is that we don't have all the great stores and sales tax you have in the world. You really need to look for alternate forms of revenue. And this seemed like one of their prime revenue generating opportunities. As the Orem City Council, we have a lot of concerns, and I think those concerns are pretty universal across the City Council. So this is one of those things where we are unlikely to have a split decision in any vote on the City Council. Never say never, but... A number of our concerns stem from meeting with the developers. So the developers have had what are called mini meetings with all of the city councilors. We can't meet all together with them because that becomes a public meeting. And so sometimes we have meetings that are small and not with a quorum just so we gain information. We can't make any decisions in those kinds of meetings. And so I had a chance to meet with the developer. I think everybody else has as well. And we still have significant concerns, maybe more than significant concerns about traffic. We have concerns about noise pollution. We have concerns about light pollution. We think that space is probably very reflective of sound. We have huge concerns for all of our residents around it. And a lot of the people who are living in Orem around the Adriatic North and the mouth of the canyon are starting to see what this development might look like and how it might affect them. And they're getting very scared and very nervous. And they've asked us as an Orem City Council to weigh in on this. We have previously weighed in because the city, Orem City Council wrote a letter to the Provo Planning Commission. You may have seen it. Where we expressed a number of concerns. We had a number of questions. And we are in the process of drafting another letter and potentially a resolution for the City Council to vote on in the next few days. Indicating our serious concerns with the plan as it is currently outlined. So I just wanted you to know that the city council is spending a lot of time on this. Residents are very concerned. We share those concerns. And if you have people coming to you and wanting to know what's the status of the city, what's the city doing on VETSPR, you can share the report that I've provided. But we are likely to vote on a resolution to send to Provo City Council in the coming days. where we express very strong concerns about the way that that will impact ORM outside of Provo boundaries. Are there any questions you might have? Maybe I could answer.

Is there any sense that Provo cares what we think?

So two things I've observed. One is that Provo works differently than ORM because of the strong mayor system. And the city council and the mayor do not always see eye to eye. We believe that the mayor is firmly behind this proposal. We think that the city council is more reticent, at least some members of the city council, and that some members of the city council would like to see greater involvement in multiple staples. And we would be one of those important staples. So it depends on the individual. We believe that some rural city councilors may not be that interested in receiving lots of emails from Warren residents because they don't see them as their core constituents. But they're getting them. They're getting a lot from Warren residents right now. So it's a bit of a delicate situation. We have some residents in the city that want to push as aggressively as they possibly can, including legal action. to do anything that they can possibly do to stop this. As a city council and mayor, we also don't want this development, and we want to stop it as well, but we also want to ensure that we have a productive relationship with Provo City. And so I think our approach is talking to Provo City and using our contacts there to have as many conversations as we can to express our concerns, and that's where we're starting. Uh, we're, we're not as a city immediately jumping to legal action. But that is a, that is a, uh, an avenue we could pursue. My person, this is just me now talking, but my personal concerns. Are, um. I believe, and depending on how you interpret the traffic studies, people are interpreting these traffic studies differently, but I believe on a concert night, and it's in the interest of the amphitheater to fill the amphitheater as much as possible during the year, that we will have very significant traffic delays all along 800, and anybody trying to get from Orem to Park City or Hever is just gonna be in a world of hurt for several hours. The turd is just a disaster coming out of anything. It's already problematic. UDOT would have to be involved. They'd have to totally reconstruct the intersection there. They'd have to create a ramp that kind of goes over Canyonview Park. We have no evidence right now that UDOT is interested in doing that. We also have concerns about the effects on Timpanogos Park, which belongs in Orem. We think it would be basically unusable on concert nights for the general public because of noise and parking and other things. So I am concerned about the possibility of taking space that the general public can enjoy for free and turning the canyon into something that people with a lot of money can enjoy by spending several hundred dollars on concert tickets. I feel like that's not a trade-off that's in the best interest of Orem residents or citizens. I also really worry about parking all up along, up into Orem around Palisade Park. I think that will be very significant impacts for thousands of Orem residents. And talking to somebody who was a sound engineer concerts before, he says with a lot of the technology now you can dampen certain kinds of sound, you can dampen piano and other things, but you can't dampen the bass and the drums. And I worry that, unless we have different kinds of evidence, I worry that that's just going to echo throughout the canyon. You're going to be able to hear from the top of Mount Timpanogos and that it will really change the quality of life. not only for our residents, but for people who enjoy the canyon. So those are some of my personal concerns. And so as we have become aware that Provo intends to continue to talk about this, we've become much more active in the way that we are talking to Provo and the way that we made term to a direct resolution where we ask Provo City Council to vote against this.

I just have a question. Are there any ramifications for this with what they're doing with the water project? Because I know they're doing stuff up in the canyon, right? Down... Who's they?

Provo?

Whatever that big water project is that's going on in the foothills.

Central Utah water.

Central Utah water. But they've got stuff on the canyon side of the mouth of the canyon that they're doing stuff back in... And if they're putting an overpass right there, does that affect anything that CUP's doing there?

I don't know. Really important question.

Yeah.

Right. If I try to imagine an overpass where you can kind of turn left out of that amphitheater, get on a ramp and come back into Provo, that overpass will essentially be in the space where Canyon View Park is. And it would just drastically change the quality of that space. I'd like space.

Well, someone who lives at mouth of the Canyon near it. Thank you. Cause we hear everything from the gun range, the gun club that's up there. We hear gunshots all day long. I can only imagine. You've got a full on concert going, how that's going to echo through that space.

The other perfect storm that you can get to is you can have, A holiday weekend where Deer Creek traffic's coming down, which is already bad. You know, it backs up at that intersection right now. A sporting event at BYU and a concert in the venue. You know, that 800 north would be like... You might as well just park your car and walk home.

Yeah, it's a nightmare. It's a nightmare out there, honestly. Anyway.

So I think I've expressed in planning a work session before that I didn't think this was a realistic project for a lot of reasons. I still believe that, and I still believe that common sense will prevail. But it has not fully prevailed. And so we're just getting much more active and assertive about the way that we're trying to address this as a city, recognizing the limits of our own voting abilities, but trying to use whatever influence that we can muster. And we have a lot of residents behind that. Just be aware. I'll continue to provide you updates on that if you would like. There may be opportunities for the Planning Commission to also weigh in on things. It's just that this is not your jurisdiction because it's not Orem. So it's not something we would normally bring here. This is more of a political problem rather than a land use problem for Orem. That's why you haven't seen it so much yet.

So on the political level, if it passes Provo, does that still mean... The state can stop it for roads, and environmentalists can come in and stop it, and CUP could jump in. There are other options, even if it passes.

So the only thing that would pass in the near term would be a rezone. And you all know what that means, right? The site plan hasn't been approved, right? The development agreement wouldn't be approved yet. There could be environmental litigation that could still go on. So we're a ways away from any sort of fatalistic concern that this is a done deal. And I just think that once people recognize the scale that's being proposed, that the math will just not work. 20,000 seats is just 5,000 seats short of the giant amphitheater in West Valley City, which has a lot more traffic options around it, and it's still a nightmare to get out of that venue. So the fact that we have one egress is just...

It's the size of the Marriott Center. Getting out of traffic after a big home game.

And the Marriott Center, again, has lots of options.

This doesn't.

And people are not trying to commute past the Marriott Center. Typically, I guess you are. It's not bad, yeah. But in general, we want Wasatch County to be involved. We want the Outland Association of Governments to be involved. We're going to ask the Mountainland Association of Governments to do a use study of the canyon and the parks and the trails to find out when public usage is highest. We suspect that public usage is highest at the same time as they went in concerts. And so that could be useful information to be able to assess the impacts on the public. That's my update. Feel free. I would like to be your liaison to that conversation. So if you have people that are coming to you and asking questions, you feel like you don't know what the sort of current status of the city is, I'm currently in the loop on that. I'd be happy to share. Okay.

Thank you, Quinn.

Any other questions for Quinn about this? Okay. If not, then I think that about covers our pre-meeting. We'll adjourn so we can be ready for a regular meeting at 5.30. Great.

Thank you all. Thanks.

Hey, Susan, can you hear me? I can't hear you. I'm just going to make a comment, even though you can't respond back. I just thought that was awesome that you picked up the power lines, because that's a nuance that developers and financers would know.

Okay, good all right, we will go ahead and call the orange city planning Commission meeting to order at 532 PM on September 2 2026 in the orange city council chambers with anyone like to offer the invocation. Okay, Jeff.

Father, we're grateful to be here this evening. We pray that we may have a good meeting, have a good spirit in the room and be able to listen. Get feedback and hear concerns and make wise decisions. We're grateful for the city that we live in and for the many blessings we have and privileges because of it. We say these things in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Okay. We will begin with our consent agenda items, which is item 3.1, approval of the July 15th, 2026 meeting minutes. And 3.2, which is approval of the August 5th, 2026 minutes. There were some issues with the August 5th one. So we need to remove those from the consent agenda. Do we have to do that by motion? No.

I think in your motion, if you could just make a motion to approve the 3.1, item 3.1 and then 3.2, then we're fine.

Yeah. And then continue 3.2 so we can get that fixed. Okay. Unless there are other comments about the items. Okay.

Motion? I move that the Orem City Planning Commission approve the consent agenda 3.1. I think I end there. And continue. Yeah. The consent agenda. So approve the consent agenda number 3.1. Right. That works. Okay.

Yeah. Well, then we have to continue 3.2 separately. So we can either do it as one motion or two.

And continue motion 3.2.

That would be very helpful. Thank you. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Susan moved and Jeff seconded that we approve item 3.1 and continue item 3.2. We'll go to vote. Darren? Yes. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thank you, Carl. The consent agenda is approved in the form we set it and got complicated. Sorry about that. Okay. We'll move on to our action items, which are our administrative items. We will start with item 4.1, which is a plan amendment, Fort Knox, located approximately at 993 Industrial Park Road in the M2 zone. Jared?

Thank you. This is related to another item on the agenda tonight for a site plan that will be Taking up these top two lots, 993 Industrial Park Road. This is in the M2 zone. It's just over four and a half acres. There are five lots currently and four proposed in this amendment. It is an amendment because we're reducing the number of lots, combining lots, not creating new ones, just for sake of argument. This is the plat, but I wanted to show you, to make it more clear, you can see the lots here, lot one, two, three, and four. That is the proposed, or sorry, the existing plot. No, I'm sorry. That's the proposed lot structure. This is the existing lot structure. So a couple of changes that make this lot up here available for an addition to this existing building. And then separating out other uses and things, getting rid of this lot that's only storage, et cetera, making these more usable lots for what they have plans for. I hope that makes sense. Is there any question about how that's functioning?

Questions for Steph?

Okay. No. Okay. Does the applicant, is the applicant here and would they like to say anything? Nope. Okay. Then that's what's before us. Plot amendment. Any questions or we can move to motion.

I move that the planning commission approved the plot amendment for Fort Knox. Plot a located 993 industrial park road in the M2 zone.

Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, Darren moved and Susan seconded that we approve the plan amendment for Fort Knox. Okay, Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Carl?

Okay.

Thank you.

Item 4.1 passes. We'll move on to item 4.2, which is the site plan for Fort Knox, located approximately at 993 Industrial Park Road in the M2 zone.

This should look very familiar from a few minutes ago. If it doesn't, check with your physicians. This is 993 Industrial Park Road, 1.61 acres. This is 1.61 acres of that previous. This is to accommodate a 9,440 square foot building addition to this existing structure right here. So the addition goes in the back here. You can see that on this next slide. This is the proposed addition. It's to continue or to expand operations that are already there. This is a security company. They do metal fabrication here for safes and things like that. The total acreage we already talked about. There's parking provided here for the new addition as well. This was talked about a little bit in the pre-meeting. There's an agreement to allow for parking and access across this property line to the north to make these spaces usable on the north side of the building. The majority of the parking is around the front two openings here. They do have 33 spaces provided. They're required 30 by the calculations for the building that's planned, including the two ADA stalls. Landscaping out in the front, we need three trees there under our code. They've provided those, a couple of interior trees as well. And this front parking is kind of the main focus of the building. This is industrial zoning, so there are no architectural or design element requirements. This is a pretty basic building. The addition will look exactly like the current structure. Any questions about the Fort Knox site plan? It's basically just that north end of this existing site. All those lots in that subdivision that you just talked about are connected for access and parking arrangements by easement, so it's kind of a free-flowing site amongst other users.

Okay. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Jared. Okay. Oh, sorry. You almost looked like you had a question, Susan. Yeah. Okay. All right. If there's no further questions or discussion, we can move to motion. Darren, you are up.

I move that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for Fort Knox located at 993 Industrial Park Road in the M2 zone.

Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Darren moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the site plan for Fort Knox. Darren?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

Okay. Item 4.2 is approved. We will move on to item 4.3, which is a preliminary plat for Funes located approximately at 115 North, 800 West in the R8 zone. Jared?

Thank you. So this is a subdivision, a preliminary subdivision. The plan is to split this lot, create a new building lot here and keep the existing home. Both the lots will meet the requirements for area, for frontage, and could meet setbacks. It was noted in the pre-meeting that there is a power line in this area. Am I getting the area right right there? That does not show on the preliminary plat. So at this time, I feel like it would be appropriate that this go back and we can have the preliminary plat corrected. If you're of a mind to do so as a planning commission, we'd like to suss out what's going on with that and why that's not here on the preliminary showing.

Yeah.

It would need to show on the final, and it will affect the buildable area. I think they can probably still meet the buildable areas that are required, but I'd like to be sure of that before it's moved on.

Is the applicant here? I don't see him. Okay. Yeah. Then I think the best course of action is probably to continue this until the next meeting so you have an opportunity to reach out to them.

I think we would be ready by the 16th of September. That should be enough time. Okay. But you can also just, if you want, you can continue things to a certain meeting or you can continue them to a condition. So you could say until that situation is resolved. And then if it takes longer, we could still bring it back without worrying about the notice.

I'd recommend continuing until this has been addressed.

Thank you. That's probably what we're looking for.

Okay.

Do I have someone who wants to make a motion? Sure. I'll make that motion. I motion that we continue 4.3 until we've resolved the power line issue.

Okay. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Susan moved and Jeff seconded that we continue this item until the power line issue has been resolved. And we'll begin with voting. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Carl?

Aye. Okay. Item 4.3 will be continued. Okay, item 4.4, it's a side plan for home built, located generally at 1950 North State Street in the PD 53 zone. Jared?

Thank you. This is the site plan for home built based on that change to the PD-53 zone that was recently approved, doing a new concept plan. So this is the existing, well, it doesn't exist anymore. It's been demolished. This was the former Allen's shopping center or whatever it was called, the Allen's grocery store. The phase that we're looking at now is this right here. This is the site plan that we're considering tonight. 3.98 of the acres. The home built required parking is 133 spaces. And then they have provided 142 with there's some associated parking with agreements and things. We'll talk about that in a moment again, too. But the full site functions with parking arrangements between different sections. And so it does meet the parking requirements. It exceeds them just a little bit. Uh, the, the building kind of faces, uh, state street here. Um, most of the parking, we have a plan coming into the building, et cetera, bringing pedestrians in again. The hope is that this, um, this site can be sort of integrated in with the rest that people that come to the home built store for other things will shop or, or eat at the restaurants in this area. They've, they've included the state street, um, The State Street standard improvements that we require, the 8-foot sidewalk, the landscaping strip, and the 15 feet adjacent to State Street, that's a really big improvement. This is a 35,000-square-foot store, so it's a significant building. But as you can see, at least from the front aspect where it's facing the parking lot, it has a pretty good human scale. This is a... The main concern with the site plan 2 concerns the heights. Heights in this, as you probably remember from the concept plan, the heights have to be stepped back so that they're lower as they approach that residential zone to the rear of the site. So the maximum height outside of the 100-foot buffer is 39 feet overall. Any questions about the building itself and the height? The setbacks are quite significant as well. The rear setback there, you can see this is centered kind of in the middle of that portion of the site. And with those lower heights that have been birthday caked back toward the residences, we shouldn't have any issues. Sorry?

You have to use your mic.

Yes, that's my... Is that a technical term, birthday caked? It is in my line of work, yeah. Is it been birthday caked? That's cool. There's probably a cool architectural term that I don't know. Never been accused of being cool. The landscaping plans here, again, there'll be 39 new trees planted in this first phase. We're looking forward to a pretty significant visual improvement on this site. Do you have any questions for staff other than what we've talked about so far?

One quick one, Jared. Yeah, Carl. The lower right-hand corner there, is that a drive-through on that property?

Yes. This one's planned for a restaurant pad.

Okay. That was just a curiosity question.

Yep. That's a good point, though. Yeah, this one's planned for a restaurant pad in the hopes that that visibility and access to State Street coupled with a draw from a home design building like this will do a good restaurant.

And that's considered a separate lot on here, correct?

It is a separate parcel. So that brings me back to the one thing we should discuss, and I apologize. I'm glad that you brought that up. So the parking arrangements, we talked about that a little bit in the pre-meeting. There are shared parking easements on these lots. They are no longer – they were looking at, as a group – subdivision amendment that would change the lot lines and things. They're no longer doing that. Homebuilt is going to long-term lease this property. But the new park, they have parking easements in place now or ready to be approved that do not reference the new or the previously planned subdivision but reference the existing situation. So we wanted you to keep that as a condition of approval for the site plan that those easements get recorded against this property as part of this project.

Cause we talked about the two options with that about either being conditioned on updating the parking agreement or of the filing of the plat.

Right. And they had already, they had already decided to update the parking agreements when they decided to file the plat. They just, we didn't have copies of those yet, but we will have those now. So, but we'd still like that to be a condition that those be recorded needs to be a condition of the site plan approval.

Okay. All right. It's the applicant here. Would you like to come forward? See if anyone has any questions for you. Is there anything you'd like to say?

I believe that they have been recorded, but happy to have the condition on there. I think we recorded earlier this week or end of last week.

We just want to make sure it's verified. So any questions for the applicant? I mean, we've kind of seen it before, so it's just re going over it. Carl, any questions?

No, no, I'm pretty familiar. I think they did a great job during the preliminary meetings.

Okay. All right. I guess we don't have anything for you, but thank you. Yeah. Okay.

Do we want to, I don't think there's, this is pretty straightforward.

So do you want to make a motion in someone's motion screen? Yeah. Condition on the parking agreement being filed.

So I'll do this one. I move that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for home built located at 1950 North State Street in the PD 53 zone with the condition that the parking agreements are recorded.

Okay, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Carl moved and Darren seconded that we approve the site plan for home built with the condition of the parking agreement being filed. Okay. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

Okay. Item 4.4 passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to our public hearings, which is item 5.1, which is a sign ordinance text amendment for Alamo Storage amending section 14-4-2 regarding alterations to non-conforming signs.

Emma? Hi, everybody. Yeah, so I've got the current section as it is right now up here. So legal non-conforming sign is a sign that was legal at one point, and then the sign ordinance changed, and it's not allowed under the current ordinance. So they're allowed to remain, but they're not allowed to be materially altered. They can replace the faceplate and they can make minor repairs up to 50% of the signs value, but nothing more dramatic than that. Our applicant is Yesco Signs on behalf of Alamo Storage, which is a property here in Orem on the west side of I-15. They are proposing alterations to a small change to subsection A here and then adding a subsection D. So B and C will say exactly the same. um here in red is what they've proposed to add so just to clarify up here shall not be materially altered unless explicitly stated and then they've added down here um the added subsection so this only applies to freestanding signs west of the i-15 that are oriented towards freeway traffic which is a very small collection of signs as we've discovered um These signs, if they're legal nonconforming, will be able to be materially altered as long as that alteration does not include an increase in height, an increase in the display surface area, or structural changes to the supports or foundation. So you can wrap the pole or something like that, make aesthetic changes to those supports, but nothing structural. I have here a map of our sign zones for the city of Orem. You'll see the I-15 is marked in red there, and I've marked in that sort of bluish purple color the seven signs that are legal nonconforming freestanding pole signs west of the I-15 oriented towards freeway traffic. So this ordinance, if adopted, would only apply to these seven signs. You can see that they all fall within sign zone B, but there is some space along the freeway to the west of the I-15 that is in sign zone E or sign zone C. So you can see those there. And then I've pulled what our code says currently for sign zone B as far as what height is allowed. You can see the maximum height is 24 feet. The allowed height is based on the street frontage that the property the sign is located on is in. I believe the sign in question for Alamo Storage is around 54 feet. So it's about double that. And if it were... If they were to alter that sign, if they were to update the cabinet or make any changes like that, they would need to bring it into full compliance with current code, meaning they'd have to lower the sign all the way to 24 feet. Same with all of those seven legal non-conforming signs there. I did include the section about freestanding signs in sign zone E here. Just to give you an example that we do have sign zones that anticipate the grade differences around I-15 and the necessity of raising the height of the sign in order to see it from the right-of-way. But sign zone B does not do that. Believe. That's the information I have. What questions do you have for me? Questions for Steph? Jeff?

So just to confirm, what is their motivation? Just to update the sign?

Yeah. They want to change the cabinet, and they can't do that now unless they shorten the sign to below where it would be able to be seen from freeway traffic. So it's 54 feet right now. If they were to make the changes they want to make, they'd have to bring it down to 24 feet. Got it.

Okay. And I don't see any downside in that. Am I missing anything? I'm just curious if anybody has any thoughts on that.

Yeah.

For the city or for the, yeah, maybe the company because it's a lower sign, right?

So that's something to keep in mind. Another consideration is that this has a very limited scope with only those seven signs. It's not like changing the height allowance for the whole zone or anything.

The future signs either.

Yeah, it wouldn't be future signs. It's just those existing signs right there.

Yeah, we wouldn't be adding new signs. People wouldn't be able to build new signs. It's only these ones that would be able to be maintained.

So doing this wouldn't Allow the other signs to be a detriment to the city, I guess, is my question. It doesn't seem like it.

It also wouldn't allow any of these signs to get any bigger in any way, only to change within the same size, if that makes sense. They can keep it tolerant, but they can't. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay.

Let's talk to the, it is a public hearing, so we do need to do that portion, and we haven't talked to the applicant yet. Is there any other questions directly for staff? Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward and introduce themselves and

Is this already on? Yep. Okay. My name is Skylar. I work for Yesco as a permit specialist for them. I am not the original applicant. She could not make it, so I'm here in her stead. So basically, the reason why we mainly just targeted the non-conforming code rather than the what was it zone b um all together is just to allow the existing signs to be able to keep what's their their advertising existence square footage um and um I'm not sure if the artwork ever got to you, but the square footage would actually be decreasing. What they have existing is decades-old signs kind of run down. Some of the plex has actually been broken out of the signs. And so our client just wants to make sure it's up to date. and looks better for where it's sitting. And if they were to decrease in height to conform to code, it would basically be non-existent. And that's the only space that they have to have advertisement. And so really the text amendment is just to keep that fairness that they can still have that sign. Because I think the square footage of the existing sign is... like 590 square feet, including all of those little polygons. And the proposed would be more like 340. The height is staying the same. We're just wrapping the existing exposed poles with aluminum face and then a tenant panel that kind of shows the businesses that are there. So do you have any questions for me?

Questions for the applicant? Carl, do you have one? Any? I'm just asking. No, I have none.

Thank you. I don't know. What is the business? I always like to...

So the customer is actually here. The owner is actually here. So... Yeah, if he wants to answer.

Hi there. Ian Boggess representing the family that owns the sign. So... You probably don't... I know you would recognize this sign. It's like... I think it's 800 North. Did you go right? It's hideous. It's got the Alamo sign above it and the polygons underneath it, like you said. So right now, there's a bunch of small warehouse spaces there. And I think originally, the polygons were set up for the individual tenants. to advertise on, that is no longer, you can't read those small polygons anymore. So it's bringing the polygons into one new rectangle. And so what would be advertised there? It would be allowed for one of the businesses to advertise there. We anticipate it just being a warehouse space for rent. That's what we anticipate it being. What it could be in the future is any one of those tenant sets there. say it'd be like an hvac person like they could put their hvac company there but it would only allow for i guess you could have multiple people on it but it would just be the one sign i don't know if that answers your question yeah that's helpful thank you i yeah right getting a sense of what it is thank you that's very helpful instead of just the the dry background explanation right

Any other questions? Okay, thank you, guys. Thank you, gentlemen. I should sorry. Okay, this is a public hearing. So we need to open this up for the public to come forth and comment. If you want to speak, come forth and say your name and you'll have three minutes. So we'll open that. And we're also going to close it because no one is here other than the applicant. So it's now in our court. So if we have any other questions or discussions we can talk about a little bit. I think, Jeff, I think there is a lot of upside in the sense of renewal, better signage and renewal. And again, this is not billboards. This is not other things. This is freestanding polls like in front of a business saying you're here. And it is a very limited number of things that it applies to. Yeah.

Just one comment, Chair. I've been driving past this sign for decades. I'm very familiar with it. Anything to freshen it up, I think, would be great. And so I'm really quite for being able to freshen that sign up.

Okay.

Okay.

Then do you want to – oh, Susan, you want to say something? Okay. I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed amendment to Orem City Code section 4.14-4-2 regarding alterations to non-conforming signs.

Okay. Do I have a second? I second. Susan moved and Jeff seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Who goes ahead and go to vote?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Carl. Thank you. Item five. Wow. 5.1 will be forwarded to city council with approval.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there any other businesses?

No, I'm just, I'm just happy you all got to listen to someone instead of me.

It's always exciting to have.

You can always vote on that too. Make Jared shut up and have somebody else.

Perfect. Okay. Well, if there's no further business, then we will move for adjournment.

All right, so move.

Okay.

I second.

Okay. Darren moved and Jeff seconded that we adjourn. And then... Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Carl?

Aye.

Okay, we're adjourned at 5.58 p.m. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all.