Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

we go we will call the orange city planning commission meeting to order at work session work session work session the order at 4 37 p.m on september 16 2026 in the orem city council conference and we had one item but that has been removed so we are going to have an agenda item discussion and

Talk about it. I'll let you know at least just a little briefly about the item that we removed. There is an active travel plan that's being worked on. The text is still not ready for prime time, but the map, we wanted to get adopted so that you will be seeing it pretty soon. But we noticed a couple of things that need to be adjusted and brought to our attention. So we're going to do that and bring it back to you soon enough.

So don't worry.

You'll get to see the very complicated, very exciting map, and Matt will walk you over to it. um it's been you from the transportation advisory I wouldn't say it was redacted something like that um other than and so with the uh time frame with which we'll move that we didn't really have time to prepare anything else for this meeting but we have the agenda items to prep for and then in general if you have general questions about things we're happy to go over anything tonight So is it okay if we go to agenda prep first? Is that all right?

Yep.

So first item on the agenda coming up in the main meeting 4.1 is the Shelley Lane condominiums. Meg's got her mouth full, so I'm going to walk through. Is that okay? This is Becca's project, but I'll talk about it because I'm going to have her.

The Shelley Lane condominiums. were a series of town homes that they just started to build, but their site plan was, or at least their plot, was passed in...

It was a long, long time. Maybe it was the 90s. It was like 20 years.

Yeah, which is how we ended up kind of with that unusual shape of all the different squares. In 2024, they came through with their site plan, so that's when they showed us the elevations for the town homes. That was passed in 2024. And then the last few months, they just started actually building the townhomes. And now that they're building them, they would like to turn them into condo units so that they can be individually owned. So pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. I attached all those... The CC&Rs and the founding documents in that packet. I don't know if anybody had questions about that.

Everyone loves to read. Everybody here is favored to read random CC&Rs. CC&Rs are very primitive.

For the record, the lawyers are offended by that statement.

I know you would be, and that's why I said it.

That makes sense.

I was wondering if somebody could pronounce that word for me, but I think I just got it. Okay, thank you. And that means.

make them available for individual ownership because town homes are not yeah okay these well sometimes that's my thought right the original um when they built them when their site plan came through it was that uh it was one owner per whole building okay so by splitting them into condos they allow them to each unit have an individual owner

Okay, so the decision is to allow that instead of... Okay.

And the difference between the condominium and the townhome is condominiums are boxes in space, and they don't own the land underneath. Townhomes would be there selling the land, but it's going to the HOA. So the HOA owns the land, but the individual owns the space. Okay.

They call out their portion.

Yeah, everyone has a fractional ownership. Fractional ownership, right.

I like to think of it, to help me, years ago, this was my work around the problem. I think of it like this. This is off topic, but we have time. It's a good moment to do this. Townhome, I think of townhomes, townhouses, that's an architectural style. It's a house style. It's a way of building something. Condominiums are a way of owning something. You can own townhomes either as fee title. You can own the dirt under them and the house itself just with attached walls. Or you can own them condominium style where all you own is the box of air and everybody owns together the rest of it. So don't interchange. People like an interchange. Are these townhouses? Yeah, they are. But they might be owned to any one of three or four different ones.

Does the construction requirements change condominiums over rental units?

They can. There's up and down and there's the side to side things. But the rental units, there are different requirements between. So most of the times when townhomes are built, they know beforehand how they're going to construct them. Right. So like walls.

Between the walls are different quality as opposed.

Every living unit has a higher fire rating.

Right. Between the two units. Right.

When they plan that ahead of time to make those requirements for the condominium.

Basically, instead of renting, we're going to let people buy them. That's right. That's really the long and short of it.

The plat up here, like Becca was pointing out, that's this original one, condominiumized buildings. So like this building here could be owned right now as one building. And then the building owners all on in common, the rest of it now, they're saying, we actually just want to split each unit up into its own honorable piece. So, that's what we're going to do.

Oh, yeah.

And what are the additional implications of that? Just the really really.

There's nothing nothing changed about the site.

Yeah, nothing's changing about the site. All the parking and everything that they proposed in 24. that's exactly what's being built. Number of units. Yeah. Same number of units.

Thank you. Same style of units. All of it. Just the ownerships change.

Just a curiosity question is, um. Is there a tax advantage to save warm to have those individually owned as opposed to.

six buildings as opposed to 24. that's a good question i have no idea if the if the tax would be higher on the individual or on the main building i think we should introduce our economic development i met him today and i had realized he sat in our meetings and i didn't know who he was so i'm uh garrett anderson i'm the new economic development director for the city of borough a new as in maybe what three three or four months ago

Yeah, generally speaking, the same property, if it was in private ownership rather than as an apartment, would generally be a higher tax revenue to the local taxing bodies. Either because of the assessed value or because of simply the rate on an apartment versus a home. Yes, in general, all the schools in the city will see more tax dollars if it's private ownership.

And then it's just whether they get owned and then rented to somebody else or something still, this at least creates the possibility that all four occupants aren't renters. Okay. One of our main goals is owner-occupied housing. So if it furthers that, that's good.

Jared, you might have said this, but To condominiumize individual ownership of units, joint ownership of the properties. Is there another model where individual ownership of units and it's not joint ownership of the property?

In townhomes, sometimes yes. If they're all fronting on a street that you can subdivide lots onto, subdivide the lots underneath the townhomes, then yes. Then there's no common, you don't have to have common ownership.

that that's not something that yeah we did actually any of our zones are currently though right it would have to be done this kind of way rd of some kind and why would it not be permitted It's just not our zoning laws don't include townhomes as a viable option unless it's in a PRD.

The only way to do any attached housing in the city right now, anything duplex, fourplex, townhomes, apartments is through PRD. That's one of the general plan things we're looking at as well is that we... It's not as a commission. Well, you guys haven't thought of it because it was previous to you. But one of the thoughts that we had looking at this at first was that it might not be a bad idea to have multifamily zoning again where the parameters are defined and everyone can see what they are. And you don't have to just go in and say, well, let's see what everyone's proposing and see if we're OK or not. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but sometimes it might be good to have property that are just zoned for a certain number of units and a certain kind of attachment or whatever there is. We don't have that right now, like Karen said, not at all.

Only priorities, but we have had some people come to us with some really creative solutions of how to. True to do improvements on.

Well, and Becca was pointing out that one of the ways that we did, we subdivided and put fee title ownership of a couple of townhomes, really twin homes, was that rocket gem.

It was already an existing duplex.

They were an existing duplex. And we do, the one thing we do have is you can, under one of our codes, I forget the reference, but one of our... Codes allows you to to turn a duplex into ownership. You can subdivide a duplex or an existing multi family structure. Like a duplex or 4plex can be pre sub can be subdivided with 0 lot lines to create ownership. 1 thing you do have.

No, no questions on Chile later kind of musician. Oh, wow. I'm going to have to read that in the main meeting, too, aren't I?

Condominiumization.

Right then, but I'm like, next time, I'm like... For a long time, Microsoft Word didn't recognize that as a real word. It's accepted signage and condominiumization. I'm sure that's a sign of progress in our civilization or not. Maybe. He never knows. Okay. So Shelly Lane, the next item on the agenda would be 5.1. The other two items are both public hearings. We call it the Wolverine Rezone. This is from, I'm going to say it wrong. Not controlled. Is that right? I'll get to it.

Controlled manufacturing.

Controlled manufacturing bank to M1 manufacturing. This is a 1075 South, 1675 West. It's 9.29 acres. This came before the commission earlier this year. And there was some misunderstanding between the engineers on the project and us and the project owners. And they kept showing it as storage units. And they had a zone that didn't, they had applied for the M1 zone that didn't allow for storage units. It's all unnecessary backstory. So forget it as soon as I've said it. But we sorted that all out. They redrew the project. I kept saying, well, it looks like storage units. And to the extent that your engineers have labeled it. Well, we didn't realize that. You need to change your concept planning, showing everyone it looks like storage units. and then and you can't do storage in cm1 so to put it really simply what these folks want to do is rezone this corner of a large swath of controlled manufacturing to manufacturing one to light manufacturing m1 so that they can redevelop these units and re-make them available for smaller users, and then do a new line of flex spaces along this west edge with a zero lot line. What the M1 offers that they're interested in that the CM zone does not offer is that zero lot line. The CM setbacks are much bigger, intended to create more of a park, office park feeling. There's a slide here. They want to redevelop something like this. Right now, that's that area right there. Right now, that wouldn't be possible under the CM zoning. The uses are very similar.

They don't see the water treatment facility.

Yeah, they're not the kind of neighbors that are going to be concerned about it. One thing that did concern us as a staff that they've worked out, to a certain degree anyway, is that in redeveloping this area, this is currently holding all of their storm drainage water for all of this area. So they're going to put that underneath the parking area here in a big storm tax system. Biggest one we've ever seen.

So talking about storage, I did drive down there and drive through the facility, and they do have a sign. And as I look at this, I realize they do have boat and RV storage. Somewhere in here. But I think it's the parking lot there on the back. Oh, the back side. No, to the right. Okay. See that little notch out there where there's only parking stalls in it? In here? No, no, no. Down to the right. You can stand up in place. I've gone to almost everywhere.

I'm getting the wrong place. In here. In here.

Yeah, it's the one with only parking.

Yeah, it's... I'm sorry. Yes.

Right here.

Oh, that's the one place I didn't go to. It says I walked in. It was I drove in. It was a sign that says RV and boat storage.

Technically, that is in the... That is in the CM zone. I don't know if that's allowed that way or not. Self-storage is typically not. That might be allowed. I'd have to look at the list again. The only difference in the list is between... Sorry. The only difference in the use lists between the CM zone and the M1 are these uses here. It doesn't include that, so I don't know. M1 is just more liberal with things like that, and you can do self-storage, but not until you get to M2. The M1 wouldn't even allow self-storage, so that would be on the table. The real difference is in that its front setback is shorter. side setback is significantly shorter because it's zero. The rear setback is zero where you've got 20s in the CM zone. So it's basically just space. They're after you.

Who's the neighbor on the south side of that? I can't remember.

Here? Yeah. I don't know that. I'm sorry.

I was trying to figure out where they get their access from.

They get it through an easement.

An easement will stay.

Tonight, this is This is the zone change request. And with things like the hail that we're going to talk about in a moment, with projects like that, we look at site plans and concept plans and have them attached to the zoning. This M1 classification is a standard zone. They're not required to do a – they're not tied to this concept plan. So we've only reviewed it to the extent that we can say it's feasible to do something like this under M1. They could do something completely different that would be also allowed under M1. That's not – Really on the table, so we've looked at it only as a staff as far as to say, yeah, we could, we could handle drainage if they redevelop this because of the change in setbacks, et cetera. It's really. Up to the city to decide if that's desirable or not and this concept plan. Is it really that in stone just because this is done. This is what they want to do, and they've spent some money getting it ready. So we expect them to do it, but we're not reviewing that. If they get the zone changed, they'll be back with this site plan for you. And that's when we would look at the easement, making sure that stays, et cetera. We'd condition it on that kind of thing.

The buildings are very attractive, considering they're manufacturing. I mean, they're not bad. They look pretty decent. Some of them are bad.

Has public works weighed in on this?

Public works itself? No, but to the extent that the engineers and Chelsea and everybody from stormwater, their main involvement has been through utilities, so water looks at it and stormwater looks at it.

Thinking about the impacts on the water treatment facility.

On the treatment facility? We would rely on them through site planning for that, and then I'm assuming Chelsea would have switched to stormwater. But in terms of In terms of impact to the treatment plan, I don't think there would be any. They're not currently using that land easements across anything. So should be okay. Any other questions or questions about this 1? Sure, the other item on the list is. the Hale Center text amendment that allows residential condominiums as a permitted use in the PD 13 zone and establishes some standards and a concept plan. So let me just buzz to that, those slides that we look at. This is where the Hale Center Theater used to be. Oh, this is just to show you on the question slide, I put this larger sort of zoomed out version of this. When I say it's a big swath of controlled manufacturing zoning, I'm not kidding, it's huge. manufacturing was this area's designation. They're both in the same general plan category, though, so it doesn't really, it's just a question of are you okay with a 10-acre corner light industrial set of control?

Is that our public facility right smack dab in the middle of that?

I don't know if that's ours or if it's just zoned that way. Right here. Obviously the water came out. I don't know. I don't know that. I'm sorry.

The fire safety.

Oh, it might be the proving grounds thing.

I don't know if we're that far enough south yet.

Is that the proving grounds?

Yes. Well, it was out there. I mean, when we proved it, it was still.

Wrong around it. Okay. So anyway, there's that. Oh, go ahead.

Maybe it's not. I'm trying to decide if we're far enough south. I can't tell on this map.

This is only about, this is about, this is 10th here. It's 1,000 south.

Yeah, maybe it's, I don't know.

This is the old Hale Centre Theatre. So the PD 13, Plan Development 13 zone, it was one of the originals. Been there a long time. The Hale Centre Theatre, obviously, has moved along and is no longer operating there. So the Hales are trying to sell it. The applicant tonight is looking at buying it, selling it to somebody else to develop. They could develop it as well, but I think mostly they want to sell it to someone else to develop. What they're looking to do is on this 2.42 acres amend the text of the PD 13, because residential condominiums are not 1 of the permitted juices right now and then establish standards for that use because. Different standards than what the standards are. And those are all tied. There's residential to the West and South of it. Boulevard, so a little commercial to the North and some residential to the North as well.

There are some north on our Boulevard, just past the honest there. There are high density housing right across from.

Get to this. I did a larger version to up in here.

Yeah, right there. That's high density density up here.

This is again, this is these are some apartments down here as well at the other end of Warren Boulevard. they're kind of looking at their proposal as an anchor of other higher density on different ends of Orem Boulevard in that stretch. Sometimes it's nice to see those larger sets. So condominiums, they would add these other residential uses that kind of go along with that. I focused on condominiums because that's what their concept plan is for. It's not for assisted living or anything, but they could do something like that with a change to the concept. They added with the condominium Category up to 110 condominium units provided the parking can be met. And that leads us to the discussion of parking standards and things. There are no standards for residential parking in the CM zone or in this PD 13 zone. Everything in the PD 13 that's not specifically spelled out is supposed to refer back to the C2 zone. So it's looked at as a commercial zone. It's not a residential zone. It's a PD commercial zone. Adding the residential condos, they had to add these other standards. So right now, setbacks for side yards adjacent to residential are 25. They would propose that condos would have to be 40 feet from a setback, 40-foot setback from residential zoning that it's adjacent to. Setbacks for rear yards, the same thing, 25 feet for some commercial building, which we have some other building that's commercial. They would propose 40 also. Height allowed 35, and they're proposing 45 just for condominiums, if it's a structure with condominiums. Whether it's mixed use or just all residential, it would be only 45 feet high. But that 45 feet would allow you four stories. That's basically what we're looking at on this project. All of these buildings in the concept plan, with their unit count they proposed, et cetera, are four stories high. C2 is the standard for parking right now because, as I said, everything is not called out. There's not a lot called out in this zone. Everything that's not called out just refers to C2 zoning. There's no residential standard for parking in the C2 zoning because there's no residential uses allowed in the C2 zone. So they're proposing .75 spaces per bedroom. That's a little complicated, as opposed to, like, you say for a single-family residential home in the city, you have to have two spaces for parking. When you have a multifamily zone like we were talking about a few minutes ago, oftentimes the standard is 2.25 or 2.5 spaces per unit. But, again, we don't have those kind of standards right now. Those have been removed years ago, and it's all PRD. whatever people propose and what the city feels comfortable with a lot of times with higher density housing and mixed use housing cities have started to require parking based on the bedroom count instead of the unit straight unit because then it just the mix matters so looking at that with the data they provided they're proposing a total of 96 units on this site 224 bedrooms total mix of one and two and three bedroom units or sorry two and three bedroom units so or mix, sorry, of all three, one, two, and three bedroom units. And as you add them all up, you wind up with a total of 224 and a requirement of 168 spaces. So more spaces than units, but not at a rate of two. You get to, what is that per unit? I have it in here somewhere. Well, I will look that up. But anyway. Thank you. So, 1.75. Well, 0.75 is the standard per bedroom. Overall, when you compare it to the unit count, you get a different number.

So, if you take 96 and times it by 2, you've got 192, right? Yeah. And so, it's really not one.

It's not one to one.

It's less than one space per unit, which… Considering where that is, you go to some of these places along Geneva Road and you see all the people parking. There's no parking anywhere around this. Yeah, that would be a real stretch to think that that would serve the community there.

Any other thoughts about the parking? I'm interested to hear what you feel like about that.

Personally, I'm right along the same lines as you are. I think it needs to be a one-for-one.

One in one bedroom. So it is, the math is 1.75 spaces per unit.

Per unit, okay. That's what I thought I'd read, 1.75. So you wind up less than two spaces per unit. Here's the interesting thing to me is that usually when you're reducing parking counts, So if I'm being heartless and I don't care about the four stories and people's view and whatnot. And that was the main topic of the neighborhood meeting. If you read the neighbor meeting thing, a lot of concern about loss of views. And I think they tried to address that. They tried to open up between the buildings and create view sheds between buildings and pull them further from the houses. So there'd be better views, et cetera. But still, that was a big topic of concern. Discounting that or stepping away from that. The reduction in parking probably concerns me as a planner more than the density in this area, just because there's not a lot of the storm Boulevard. We had to argue to show the sidewalk out there like, and it's a curb adjacent sidewalk right now. So, if our plan is to put a bunch of people as pedestrians out on the street, because of the way that we're doing this. Then I don't want a curb-adjacent sidewalk. We need a buffered sidewalk. So we show that on this concept now, finally, and that's great. But it's access to things is the concern. You reduce parking because you have access to transportation. We've got State Street and the bus lines there. I'm not aware if there's a bus line on 400 North. Is there a bus line on 400 North? There is. There's Center. You might be walking to Center for a bus. Center or State Street. My recollection is there's not. Most of them are center and state. So there's the bus line there, and there's some restaurants and things around, et cetera. employment is a few blocks away maybe here, but it's not super well connected for mixed use. That was one of the concerns. They started out looking at mixed use, and that's still a possibility. They could do something, but the density is about 39 and a half units per acre. That's a lot higher than sort of a standard. The apartments you saw built in the 70s and 80s, those are going to be 20 units the acre standard kind of walk-up garden style apartments. These are four floors, probably got elevators, et cetera. Well, have to have elevators. But they're going to be 10 or 12, 15 units more dense than most apartments that you see in areas like this without a component that is mixed use or some reason to really look for parking reduction or Travel and use of public transit, whatever.

When I was reading through the docs, I didn't see anything as far as what their general, who they were really going for for rentals. I think it's one thing if it's single family. I think it's something else when it turns into two or more students per bedroom. Because they're all going to have cars.

That is another part of the conversation we need to have. Erin pointed out when we were looking at this, their text amendment proposes to require owner occupancy. We can't do that as part of our code. They can do that through deed restrictions if they want, all kinds of things, but we can't require it in our code. That would be unconstitutional. Is that fair to say?

Correct. Yep. Constitution. But if they require it, indeed, restrictions, it sticks.

It's just a contract. They can do whatever they want.

I'm not sure what that means. So there's a difference between what the government can do and what a private party can do. The government can't, through its zoning, require that.

Whereas private individuals are not subject to that.

They're subject to some of the issues, but not all of them.

it would be a binding contract even if they sold it if it were de-restricted and they can say so and they're proposing to do that that's one of the one of the things they talked with the neighborhood also was worried about that they that's a that's a that's a way to us why is that certain they were saying well we'll de-restrict things we'll make sure that we right into the code that we're using if they have the owner occupied And we're all good with that. Again, owner occupancy is one of the things we want to push to the city. So we're glad that they want to do it. We just need to modify the text.

So we really like the idea of owner occupancy, obviously, right? That's a great thing. We think people should, anyway. But one of the downsides of the deed restriction, for example, is, okay, who's going to enforce that? Because usually it's a deed that... includes, you know, the HOA. So the HOA would have to go and enforce it. And if you have a defunct HOA or an HOA who isn't willing to fight it and pay the litigation costs, then it doesn't mean anything.

Right. Interesting. It's only worth the will of the HOA. Correct. They will have to have an HOA. As condos, they'll have to have an owner's association. So there's at least the possibility.

So, for example, I used to live in some townhomes just down the street here, and in the HOA CC&Rs, it said that only 10% of the homes in the HOA could be rented. That was not enforced at all because the HOA wasn't willing to pay to enforce it. It's their expense.

Yeah, yeah, yep.

We can't, the city can't enforce or doesn't enforce CCNR.

But we can't because we're not a party to that. That agreement.

I hope that makes sense. Does that answer your question, Quinn? So the ownership issue, that's one of the things. that we were concerned about too. So any motion to prove it would need to strike those two parts from the, or it can be general, like modify the amended text to not include requirements for ownership. That's something that would need to be there. Is there anything else I can answer for you about this proposal?

I'm concerned about, you know, there are two, I saw the two, and I'm just curious as to concern about, you know, egress and entrance and the impact on Orem Boulevard. And I believe there's a suicide later, my center lane down Orem Boulevard currently with bike lanes on both sides. Um, I'm just wondering. They did a traffic impact study.

And it's a good question. So when they first came up with the concept, it had an exit out here on to 400 north. That was removed because of proximity to the intersection. John, our traffic engineer at the time, was now moved on to greener pastures than ours. Oh, for sure. Sounds like he died or something.

Yeah, you're just going to say, hey, it's the director in public.

I have a tear that John's still around. I miss John a lot. It feels like he died. We actually, these got as far from the intersection as we could as well, these two, to help warm up all the boulevard's traffic. And they're spaced out the appropriate distance as well for egress and ingress. There is a traffic impact study that says that a couple of intersections in the area will start to go to level D. The executive summary says, but It blames it on not this project, but just background increases in traffic. The takeaway from the traffic study is that. There's an intersection currently operating at B. It'll move to level of service C in the afternoon peak, and that's one of the effects. So they're throughout. You're going to see intersections that are functioning right now at B's, and they're going to move to level C's. So people are going to wait a little longer at those. And then eventually... Two individual turning movements are expected to reach level of service D by 2031, both driven by background growth rather than the project. So not us, not our fault. It's just general growth in the area predicted for that. And level of service D is a concern, but by 2031, the city might do any number of other things to address that. So their traffic impact study seems to say, yeah, it's got an impact, but it's not severe enough to make us do something different.

And they're not the only... People I've affected, it's basically what I'm saying.

Background both is much more significant.

Jared and the staff report, and it says that the traffic city is attached, but I didn't see it wasn't attached.

I'm sorry about that. I apologize. It should have been attached. I have the executive summary here. Just the executive summary. I should have at least just attached the executive summary. It's 249 pages, the traffic study. I always just read the executive summary to myself. But yeah, we should get that for you. It does... It does what most traffic impact studies do. It does exactly that. It's what we're going to impact, but most of the impact is going to come from the background growth. This isn't one that's showing. Sometimes they'll show up and say, you know, with this level of density, it's going to cripple this intersection to level of service immediately, and that would be a concern. It doesn't show any of that.

What was there?

Mic it first, and then Darren.

I was just going to say, was there any concern about – the only means of egress coming out specifically on the boulevard, that there wasn't a secondary egress somewhere in there. It's based on the density.

Only by me. But yeah, there's that concern. I'd like there to be. I mean, ultimately, with this number of units, you have to have the two. Yeah, absolutely. It would be better if there were three and if that third came off of a totally different street. Exactly. The problems of the proximity of the intersection outweigh the want for it. I have been on to it. that's important it's a terrible option especially with alcohol definitely with this with this level of and that's a concern with this number of units at 100 at about right around 100 units a third gets really attractive necessary with the twos necessary and a third becomes really attractive for management of flow and traffic yes exactly okay so what are our choices So this is a legislative kind of a thing. This is a city's will to do it or not do it. So your choices really are to evaluate what it does, what the project gets right, what the project gets wrong, what the idea of allowing residential condos here instead of just saying, well, it's got this limited list of conditional uses and things that you can do in the PD-13 zone. if allowing condominiums and allowing them at this kind of intensity is a good idea or not. And that's really all there is to it. You're a recommending body in this case, so you're recommending to the council either, yes, you can approve it, or you can approve it with some modifications, or you recommend approving with modifications, or you can recommend denying it, or you can recommend that you need more information from them, or you'd like them to modify their concept plan and say, You know, we would be happy with less or less intensity or shorter buildings. 45, we're not comfortable with 45. Residential structures here at limited densities and with limited heights, sure. But you can do all kinds of things. All that's on the table. You could recommend whatever you want. But if it's getting that detailed, if you're starting to reduce heights and move things, you'd want them to modify their concept plan and bring it back to you to see. Does that make sense?

And we should be thinking of it in terms of what's best for worm as a whole. Right.

I mean, sorry to just interject myself. I'm thinking, you know, definitely the density is a concern of mine to come from, you know, from four to three stories. Might alleviate that enough.

I was just going to ask. So there's two point. four, three acres, and what other viable, I mean, if you were going to do, you can't do an R6 here, can you?

You could. The stuff to the west of it is a 7-5. Yeah. You could rezone it outside. That's another thing is you could say, look, we're not interested in modifying the PD-13. It was written basically for hails or some grocery a million years ago.

Well, I think it was a veterans facility that laid out the history for us.

Yeah, I read through that. So I've been in a veterans building all my time.

It's an interesting site. And it's been... used that way for a long time in different ways. Adding residential to it, I think that, I don't know, I think if it were a proposal to rezone it to just a standard single-family detached zoning like R6 or R75 or something, I'm not sure that the, well, I am sure the price that the Hales want for it wouldn't support that. It wouldn't. Too too costly to develop versus the that you get. So wouldn't work in those instances for the price they want. Now it could for different pricing, but.

A zoning, sorry, I was saying, but it's not our job to make it work for them. I know you guys know that, but I'm just reemphasizing that.

No, I'm just curious as to what they're what the other options they have before them. Now that we're going to try and say, you've got to do this. It's just like. When they're putting this together, and obviously it's a dollars and cents thing, and they're no longer an ORM. They don't really care.

They're just trying to sell it.

I know. I know. And so I didn't ask.

But the site is, it is zoned PD-13 right now, and you can do any number of commercial things on the PD-13 zone with 25-foot setbacks, which are kind of standard. It's zoned very much like a C2 zoning. The Hales are just not getting the kind of interest from commercial that they want, I guess. Right. that's fair to say they were looking at possibly doing some of the early concepts had ground floor commercial under this first building but you lose the units and they weren't sure it was a great site for ground floor commercial we talked about doing looking at a concept that would have a horizontal mixed use aspect where the front area out here on fourth north and orem would better visibility and traffic a small shop or restaurant or something and this would be town homes but those those densities i gather weren't working for the pricing that they're looking at either again like madeline said not your not your problem as a city as a commission your duty is the commissioners look at it and see if it works what they're presenting works or does not and if you if you want to send them away with some some ideas that you could support that's up to you um

One thing we haven't talked a lot about is transition buffering and housing, the step down from commercial to housing. We haven't talked about it as a general concept, but that is...

That is something to talk about.

Can you talk about it for two minutes?

I can talk about it for two minutes. I can be really fast. And that's something that you're going to hear tonight. They have some presentation materials they want to show you. So I'm going to unplug at some point, and they're going to plug in and show you. They talk about that, about the missing middle housing. And I just think, because I don't want to say it in the public hearing, but this is in no way representative of... What the industry looks at is missing middle housing. It's 10 units per acre more than missing middle. It's a story and a half taller than missing middle. Missing middle ends at like at the most at like 25, 27 units the acre. And then it's usually not in dark walk up styles. This is not missing middle housing. That's a good transition. um this some missing middle housing would be great here i don't view this as missing middle myself everybody's just a little mean i was gonna say how do you know yeah sorry so missing middle and they'll talk about it tonight missing middle housing is that that area of housing where things like town homes or higher density town homes cottage homes you'd be surprised how much density you could get in a cottage home development where we're interesting like the kind of minimization thing you you own a single story cottage that is separated from all the land and all you own is the cottage unit Those pretty, pretty dense or what they call mansion homes or three or four units in a single building. It looks like a house. You can get densities pretty high in those. And we look at all those kinds of things, including duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes and townhome rows and things like that as missing middle. Every time you're building townhomes, you're probably engaging in what we call the missing middle, the stuff that hasn't been enough of in the past. You went from 10,000 square foot lots to 25 units per acre, three-story garden walk-up apartments, and those were your choices. And there were some smatterings of leftover duplexes and fourplexes for people. The planners and folks like that and commissions all over the country have decided that that area is kind of not served as well, that transitional housing area of... You need more density to support better affordability and get more housing in place and unobtrusively. So you've got to think of it as kind of infill housing that works on smaller blocks and smaller doses and doesn't need the large, large, large properties and larger densities to pencil to work. So we'll talk about that stuff tonight. You'll probably do a better job than me.

Any other questions on this? We will go ahead and adjourn to our regular meeting at 5 p.m.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

We've got an adapter in it.

And so we quickly identified that one of the main objectives was to accommodate using video. And I can enter reverbs here. We wanted all the same capabilities that are already in the structure. And it was emphasized to be sensitive to the other hoods. We feel that we are really satisfied sitting these meetings by creating a sense of safe.

It's safe and develop your agenda, so would you like me to keep one?

Yes, I did a bunch of research on city meetings, and it's just not right. And we found similar to what's about helping find a affordable product and making sure it's not occupied because the city feels that they have plenty of rentals. But we need to accommodate first-time homeowners. You know, usually young, sometimes older, who want to find just the right place in the world to satisfy themselves. There really is a problem in the world with lost housing for these new people who are entering the market. So they need to work together, find the right place where people can thrive. And that's really what's all spectrum of the city to deal with thrive. Whether you're older and you're going to fill in a wonderful, big, fancy property, or whether you're just starting out. And we also have some very recent comments based on our specific message. Some say things like, kids really do need a place to stay.

Yeah.

But, um, Crystal sent me some stuff. Were you involved at all in that project? No, I just, they want to put restrictions on it, something like that. We will go ahead and call the city planning commission meeting to order at 530 PM on September 16th, 2026 in the city council chambers. We'll begin with an invocation from Micah.

Our beloved Heavenly Father, we come before thee this day for this meeting to thank thee for this opportunity to come together as a community. And we ask thee, dear Father, to please bless us with thy Spirit to lead us and guide us in what we discuss. We pray thee, dear Father, to help us to come to the correct resolutions. And we ask and say these things in the name of thy Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you.

We'll begin with item three, which is our consent agenda items. Item 3.1 is approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 2nd, 2026. And item 3.2, approval of Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 5th, 2026. Motion or comments?

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

Okay. Do I have a second? second okay carl moved to micah second and that we approve the consent agenda items micah aye aye aye aye Consent agenda items are approved. We will move on to item 4.1, which is condominiumization of Shelley Lane, a request to condominiumize the townhouses in the Shelley Lane subdivision located generally at 750 North, 100 West in the R6 zone. And we'll begin. Rebecca, you're doing the presentation. Oh, yeah.

Hello. So I'm going to do a little word jujitsu because I refuse to say that word. So turning Shelley Lane into Condos? Like Jared had kind of discussed before, the condominiums is more of an ownership change rather than the change of the structure. So to kind of catch everybody up to speed, back about 30 years ago, the plat for the Shelley Lane went through, which is what resulted in kind of this strange shape. Each of these individual, I guess I can point with this. Each of these individual squares represent each individual building, which in turn was made up of four townhome units each. The site plan for that came in in September 24 and was passed. They started building those a little bit earlier this year. Now that they are building them, they have requested to turn them so that each unit is... qualified to be individually owned, condominiumized. Nothing about the structure is changing. Everything stays exactly the same. It's just the method of ownership that is changing.

And in case you're curious, that's what it looks like right now to be built.

Any questions?

Thank you. Questions from the commission? OK. Is the applicant here, and would you like to say anything?

I don't have much to add. My name is Paul Washburn. This project was actually approved originally back in 97. Mayor Washburn owned the property at that time as before he became mayor, and then when he assumed office, he decided to delay the development, but he paid all the bonds, so the project stayed in force. Family now is wanting to get the property developed, and they've chosen, they think, selling individual units makes more sense than particularly in today's economy than trying to have a bunch of rental fourplexes. So anyway, do you have any questions?

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, yeah, we move on to motion or conversation. Any comments? It's administrative, so check all the boxes.

I move that the I moved to the Planning Commission approve the final plat for the amended Shelly Lane condominiums and the condominium conversion of the townhomes in the Shelly Lane subdivision located generally at 750 North 100 West and the R six zone.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, Darren moved to Mike a second that we approve the condominium ization of Shelly Lane. Okay, Carl.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Item 4.1 is approved. We'll move on to our public hearings. Item 5.1, which is a public hearing for Wolverine Rezone. It's a request to amend Article 22-53A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone of the property located generally at 1075 South, 1675 West from CM, Controlled Manufacturing, to M1, Light Manufacturing, approximately 9.29 acres.

Jared? Thank you. So as you said, this is a request to change from controlled manufacturing to M1, which is light manufacturing. The property is right here, this 9.29 acres, a little parking lot area up here, and then there are some existing buildings. This portion right here is the reason for the request. The zoning on the property, just before we get to that, is, again, the controlled manufacturing. To the west is public facilities. This is the treatment plant. And then... The R8 zoning to the north. This is public facilities, also parkland. The zone is compliant with the general plan's designation of light industrial. And then you can see that low density residential across the street. But all around it here in the general plan is light industrial. So there's really nothing Nothing against the general plan to worry about here. The main reason that the applicants have asked for this change doesn't have to do with uses. It has to do with the setbacks and the zone. So in the current zone, this CM zone right here, you can see the front setback is 30 feet. The side setbacks are 20. Side adjacent to a street, 30. Side without a firewall, 30. And then rear setbacks are 20. In the M1 zone, in that light manufacturing, you still have a front setback, but it's 20 feet. And the side yards can be zero. Sides adjacent to the street are a little shorter, 20. Side without a firewall is the same, 20. And then a rear yard can be zero as well. And that'll make more sense on this next slide. The concept plan that they provided, and again, these aren't binding in these kind of situations, but it's illustrative of what they want to do. Because they're looking for this zone change for a specific purpose, it's to create these flex industrial spaces here, where currently it is this empty property. I'll go back to that again. So they would, in concept, redivide some of these larger units that they have into some smaller units that are more in keeping with what they're finding people looking for these days and make that change. 66 proposed stalls, the parking can work out. The Technical Development Review Committee has reviewed this plan, the concept plan, to the level to say that this kind of plan could go through the process and be approved if it were rezoned to M1. There would have to be a site plan approved later by the Planning Commission. If it were approved for a zone change, they'd have to come back with a site plan like this. and show you all the details, et cetera, to get a billing permit and do these new flex units that they want to do. So to make it a little more clear, you can see in this slide, this is the existing property, that empty area. This is that same area in this slide. So it would become some parking and these additional units as well. Any questions about that, what they're asking here?

Thank you. Carl?

I do. So can you go back to the usage? Yes. So obviously I would imagine that the residential north probably wouldn't want motor freight terminals or freight garaging and maintenance. So we have the ability to put some development restrictions on that as we go through that. Is that correct? You could, yes. Okay.

All right.

That's a good point. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward?

Hi there. Yeah. I was here about two weeks ago for the Alamo sign, uh, Texas amendment. Um, also my family also owns this piece.

Um, can you state your name?

Sorry, Ian Boggess. Thank you. Um, the only thing I would add, I mean, Jared's been great to work with on this is just that, yeah, it is, um, not permanent residents, but there have been homeless people living in that section currently. And this would provide the zoning needed to really clean it up and get that done. And I think that was the only thing that we would add. So thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Carl?

Again, going back to that list, are there... My understanding is what you're trying to accomplish here is to be able to build the parking strips here. You don't really want to add any of these additional uses into the property.

No, it's not a good location for a pawn shop or an animal kennel. And none of our other tenants, we have like 300 tenants, none of them do any of those things.

Just want to make sure that you're not...

No, no, we don't intend to do a drinking place or any of those as far as I can see.

Okay.

Yeah. All right.

That's it. Thank you.

Thanks.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. This item is a public hearing. Therefore, we're going to open up for public comment. If you would like to come and speak on this item regarding the rezone from controlled manufacturing to M1, which is light manufacturing, you can come forward. Please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Hi, my name is Albany Singh and I live at 912 South Artesian Road in Orem. So right across the park from the proposed rezone. I'm here to respectfully ask that you either forward a negative recommendation for the rezone or that the approval be limited to the applicant's specific flex space concept and not to open the door to the full range of M1 uses. Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous. As neighbors, our concerns really include increased noise, traffic, light pollution that can come with these new M1 uses, as well as negative impacts on the property values and the long-term risk that future owners could pursue uses that are far more damaging than what's currently being proposed. The Orem City Code, particularly Title 22, emphasizes stabilizing and protecting residential neighborhoods and ensuring that land uses are compatible with their surroundings. The Orem General Plan also repeatedly calls for protecting established residential neighborhoods, providing appropriate transitions between industrial and residential areas, and maintaining stable property values for residents. The controlled manufacturing zone was intentionally written as a more controlled industrial zone with larger setbacks and more limited uses. And, you know, it allows manufacturing parks to be developed on well landscape sites such that they can be located in proximity with resident or residential uses. Switching to an M1 zone would permanently open the door to much broader range of industrial and really incompatible uses that don't belong next to families, homes, and parks. The new M1 zoning would allow uses things like tobacco product manufacturing, bars or taverns, and pawn shops, which... wouldn't really be great for our neighborhood, I don't think. And these rezoning decisions really affect neighborhoods for decades. So even if the current applicant only intends to rezone to allow smaller setbacks, our neighborhood's deeply concerned that the property could be sold and that future owners would inherit a broad M1 zoning entitlement. So... One other thing I wanted to bring up were the notes in the staff report regarding the stormwater retention concerns. It seems like city staff and the DRC have expressed doubts about the feasibility for the proposed underground drainage solution. So for all these reasons, I would ask that you forward a negative recommendation. for the rezone or to limit the rezone to the proposed use based on the compatibility with the residential areas adjacent to the lot. Expanded uses that are inappropriate to be next to homes, parks and families and the unresolved stormwater and infrastructure concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

after the public hearing. Yeah. Okay. Does anyone else want to come forward for this item? Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and close the public comment now, and you can come back up. I'm going to invite the applicant back up to have... Yeah.

One response I would say is just that the primary thing we're looking for is setback more than anything. The uses are not... what we're super concerned with um it is our hope that even if it even if we only change the setback i do feel it would be an improvement to the neighborhood and that there are homeless people there on occasion um regarding the storm water um it's choked with weeds right now and based off of we've talked with two or three different civil engineers the underground storm water plan is a lot better than the technology that was used, say, 50 years ago. I don't know the exact year when this was built, but I can confidently say, based off of the civil engineers that we've spoken with, that the underwater storm water retention will be an improvement as far as storm water. And I acknowledge the concerns with tobacco and such. Yes, I would be concerned with that as well.

And for clarification, stormwater, those issues will come when the site plan. This is just for the reason.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, just to be clear, just for everyone. But that's, it is a concern and it will be addressed in the next stage if this is approved. By city council, not by us, because we're recommending and. Really trying to be clear here and probably I'm not sorry. Any other comments or.

So, yeah, thank you. This is that was helpful. What are the current uses here?

Um, there's like a print shop, there's nutraceuticals that manufacture there. I believe there's a cabinet shop as well. Um, I don't have all the tenants. Memorize, but it would be smaller businesses. So, like. We've got a lot of like tenants, window washers that will store their trucks there and then deploy carpet cleaners, those type of things.

Okay, would you be willing to limit the use to those specific current. Kind of types of business and just preclude everything that is causing the neighbors concern.

Yeah, I think we would be. My father's here is there. Yeah, we're fine to remove those added uses. Yeah, that wouldn't be a problem.

That's what we could do. We could make a recommendation.

Well, is it a development or so?

Yeah, it would have to be, it would be a development agreement.

we could limit those uses with a pretty simple development agreement. We do have time before the, if you make it a recommendation for approval or one with a condition of a development agreement, we have time that we could get that done before it goes to city council. So they're reviewing it with the actual development agreement that needs to be attached.

Okay. Great. Anything else for the develop? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now it's our turn. Carl?

I do have one more question for staff. Could you bring up the setbacks again? I just want to make sure that they... So tell me, as far as the residential facing, are there any differences in setbacks?

No.

So those facing across the street, they'll see no difference.

They'll just be along the public facility. They probably wouldn't. It's the side adjacent to a street is 20 in the M1. It's 30 in the CM. Okay. But again, so it's, it is a 10 foot difference, but the street intervening, you probably, but they're not going to take those buildings down and rebuild them.

I would imagine at this point. That's right. Okay. Thank you.

Did a comment or not? Okay. Okay. I think, you know, with what people have been saying and what we're kind of going, I think we're fine with the setbacks. We're fine with the zero minimum. Am I reading this right as a commission? And that there is some concern about changing the uses from the CM, as it has been for decades, to adding the other manufacturer options.

Okay.

Do we want to look at those uses and carve them out?

The ones that I've listed in this here are the additional uses in the M1 that don't exist in the CM. They're largely a lot of the same uses, but like you pointed out, motor freight and garaging things, those are significantly heavier. If I could make a suggestion, if you were to make a... a motion to approve on the condition that a development agreement be attached that development group would limit the uses to those uses allowed in the cm zone currently does that make sense yeah the existing cm zone and then that's easy enough to do we just don't add those we can we can list them in development agreement as precluded okay yeah yeah

So we can have motion.

I think I can say it.

You want to try it?

I can try it.

Okay.

I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the request of amending Article 2-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zoning of the property located generally at 1075 South, 1675 West from CO. Controlled manufacturing to M1 light manufacturing approximately 9.49 acres with the stipulations that the additional uses be removed in the development agreement.

Let's see. Aaron, is that good enough? Okay. Aaron? Yes. There you go. Okay. Do I have a second? Yes.

Second.

Okay. Carl moved and Micah seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval for this item with this stipulation of a development agreement limiting to the existing CM zone uses. Okay. Micah?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Aye. Sorry.

Item 5.1 passes. Thank you. To be clear, it's a positive recommendation to city council with that limitation. It will come before the city council in October.

In October. The notices the neighbors received should have scheduled October 13th for the city council's public hearing. We'll get a copy of our standard development agreement sent to the Boggess family so they can get that produced and ready for their review.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to item 5.2, which is also a public hearing. It's hail center text amendment. So request to amend the text of article 22 dash 11 dash 5 by modifying the PD 13 zone and adopting a new concept plan on the property located generally at 225 West 400 North approximately 2.42 acres before we start. The staff report, we just want to acknowledge that we did receive a number of emails from citizens and we've read those and their part are they Yeah, we've had access to those. So, Jared?

Thank you. I appreciate that. We just wanted to make sure that was part of the record for the public comment. You've received those comments. As you said, this is 225 West, 400 North. People are going to know this as the Hale Center Theater property. Until recently, the Hale Center Theater has moved along to a new facility, and this one is no longer in operation. I'll explain PD zoning in just a moment or real briefly just for the public and for the record. So PD means planned development zone. There are a number of these in the city. The PD 13 zone allows a certain number of uses. They're all different commercial uses right now in the current zoning. And then it has its own set of setbacks and height requirements and what we call zone development standards as well as the uses. And what the applicants in this case have asked to do is amend that PD-13 zone, that very specialized zone, to allow one or two new uses related to residential condominiums. That's not been part of the consideration in the past. So that makes it necessary to establish some development standards for condominiums like that and also to adopt a concept plan that includes condominiums if they're to be developed that way. I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, anyone, I will explain it again. No problem. But again, this is the zoning PD 13. It sits at this corner. The southwest corner of Orem Boulevard and Florida North. To the west is all R75 zoning, single-family homes. There are some fourplexes and duplexes further west, I believe. And then to the north, there's some more residential zoning and then commercial right across the street. And then west or east of Orem Boulevard is commercial zoning, C2 zoning. Up to State Street, you can see State Street in the north corner or in the top corner here. So this PD zone does apply to only this single property, just to be clear. It's not found anywhere else in the city. It's only that property. The uses that are allowed in that zone include these uses that you see before you, groceries, candy and nuts, stationery, florists. I'm not going to list them all, don't worry. But you can see them all. There are a variety of different sort of neighborhood-oriented uses or uses that are kind of... that's nice to have easy access to for a neighborhood like that. What the developers are proposing is to add condominiums as a potential use, and they've produced some standards for those condominiums and suggested some density and height and setback standards specific to condominiums because everything that's not controlled specifically in this zoning, the PDE 13 zone, refers back to C2 zoning for all of its other dimensions and setback, height, uses, etc., So what they proposed is up to 110 condominium units would be allowed as long as it could meet parking requirements. That leads us to the different standards that have been proposed. So there's a picture of the old Hill Center Theater there. That was nostalgic for me. I went to a few plays there, really liked it. I'll always miss it just for the record. So setbacks in the existing PD-13 zone are 25. And remember, this is a kind of a standard commercial zone, not standard, but a specialized commercial zone. 25 feet when you're adjacent to residential zoning. Setback for a rear yard, 25 feet adjacent to residential zoning. Heights are allowed at 35 feet. Parking are just the C2 standards, and those don't apply to – there's no residential allowances in C2 zoning, so there's no residential – Park requirement to refer to proposed additional regulations just for condominiums in this text of the developers are proposed 40 feet on a side yard when you're when you're adjacent to residential with a condominium. Use 40 feet for a rear yard when you're adjacent to a residential use when you're a condominium, 45 feet in height. And that would allow the four-story... You see these examples of architecture. Their concept plan would include four-story buildings for the site. 45 feet would let you do that. And then 0.75 spaces per bedroom. And that bears a little explanation. Most times we see... Parking standards are tied to square footage in commercial cases of commercial projects or to unit counts. Oftentimes when you're talking about housing, a lot of standards are in multifamily and newer multifamily developments are tied to bedroom counts. Instead, it's a more accurate depiction of the need for parking in many cases. So they proposed 0.75 spaces per bedroom, and I'll take us from there to the concept plan that they proposed that they would like adopted for the condominium use. These three buildings would house 96 total units. They're all four stories. They're all set back to those appropriate setbacks that were shown in the previous slide, the ones they've suggested, the 40 feet from residential zoning. The parking standard that they've applied here is the 0.75 per bedroom. You can see that over here on the tables. 96 total units, but 224 bedrooms yields at 0.75 spaces per bedroom, 168 spaces. So this concept plan shows you 168 parking spaces to serve the condominiums. That works out to about 1.75 spaces per unit. The building heights would all be under the 45 feet with the four stories. It is, again, 2.43 acres, so at 96 units, that's just under 40 units per acre. The concept includes two outlets and inlets on Orem Boulevard. It would close. Hale Center Theater currently kind of shared an access there. It sort of shared this residential access in some ways. That would be closed in the concept, so there would be no access from this project out onto 400 North. It would all be on Orem Boulevard. There were some questions about traffic in the pre-meeting, and a lot of residents had questions and concerns about that as well. The applicants did do a traffic impact study. That study... That study does indicate that while there would be some level of service adjustments, level of service indicates how quickly a vehicle moves through an intersection. Level of service would drop at a couple of intersections. And in 2031, they estimate that one of those intersections would fall from a level C to a level D. That's a fail level. You don't want to see. But that would be not from the project, but from background growth and increases in traffic. That's the traffic impact study at this point. So there are some concerns with traffic, but they don't feel like from their traffic study this particular project would be contributing greatly to traffic issues, as most of that would go out on Orem Boulevard. And that's... I'm trying to think if there's anything else I should review for you. There's some amenity spaces. One of our concerns as staff was that the amenities be real amenities. When you have density levels like this, people need outdoor spaces. We don't want to see them turned into drainage ponds. They have proposed doing drainage under the parking lot in those storm tech systems, like we were talking about on the previous project as well. So we'd want to see amenity plans for these and a site plan for multifamily. That would be required in the future. Again, if this were to be approved, it would involve... if this were to be approved by recommended for approved by the commission and then approved by the city council as a change it would have to come back to this body again for subdivision because they are proposing condominiums so it would come back to you for a subdivision condominium and for a site plan multi-family development requires site plan approval by the planning commission as well so you'd have more chances to look at what the amenities would be exactly how all that drainage would work updates to the traffic impact study that kind of thing if it were approved um Any questions at this point? I know the applicants have some things they want to show you before the public hearing portion as well, if that's all right.

Questions for staff? Okay. Then if the applicant would like to come forward and... You need this second?

For everybody at home that just saw us go dark, we're still here. Just a minute. You like how I assume that people are watching? I hope that's the case. All right. You can ask my wife. I've always over-assumed my popularity. It carries over to the Planning Commission as well.

Thank you. I'm Reed Dixon. I'm with Infinity Consultants, and we're representing the owners. We have studied this project for about a year now. And that's atypical. Normally, we just dive right in and start doing design work and making proposals. But we've taken a lot of effort to look at what the city's objectives are, to look at what the community would really accommodate. to look at how the property has been used and how it could be used in the future. So we've done a lot of study. We did a lot of research on what the city needs, and it was loud and clear from many, many city leaders and staff that one of the major objectives the city has is to provide for those who are classified as being part of the missing middle. Is that a term that everybody's familiar with?

We are, but you may want to clarify for everyone else.

The missing middle is typically those who have been renting and are now looking to graduate from living in a rental unit to owning their own residence. Whether that be a single family house or a townhome or a condominium, they're looking to own instead of rent. And right now in the city of Orem, there's a huge gap. where the only things available to own are either older fixer-upper or a very expensive townhome, and I'll get to the pricing, or even more expensive, more than $800,000 for a single-family house. That's the least expensive. And so there's a missing middle where if you want to graduate to homeownership, you would literally have to go to some far-flung part elsewhere, whether that be Santa Quinn or Payson or Eagle Mountain or Davis County or somewhere else, but not Orem. And so we've tried to satisfy that large demand that the city has, and we see that this site has a huge potential for resolving that challenge that the city has. And at the same time, we want to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Every single city leader we met with, and obviously the neighbors, demanded sensitivity to their current condition. And so we've tried as much as we can in every aspect to accommodate their concerns. We feel like this project that we're going to explain here is going to be a real asset to the community. Here's some of the quotes. You can see people you recognize who are on the city council or the mayor herself. We would really like to have affordable owner occupied. First-time homebuyers, we would like to accommodate them. We would like to do this with infill projects to satisfy the missing middle. It costs too much for first-time homebuyers. They can't qualify for assistance, for homebuyer assistance programs. There's nowhere in existing Orem neighborhoods for them to buy a place to live. This one, we need to work together. I think that's what we're doing here tonight. The mayor emphasized that we want people in our city to thrive, not just survive or get by or move out, but to thrive where they are, where they are. These are even more recent comments. Again, I didn't put all the negative ones up here because we're trying to stay positive, and there were quite a few criticisms, but it just says, look, let's be realistic. Our kids need places to live in Orem. They don't want to necessarily settle for a fixer-upper. If you're into construction, maybe that's your plan. But if you want something newer so you can focus on other things, there's nothing available. It's too expensive. The last comment might be representative of the attitude of many. There are other places to live. If these people want to own something, we don't want to turn Orem into a slum. It doesn't help anyone except the building companies. Let them move to Tennessee. So I know that person's being a little facetious, but there really is somewhat of an attitude on the part of many that I have my house. I'm happy where I am. You guys can figure out your own problems. This is just a graphic of what the whole city kind of looks like. The red is about 30% of the city in terms of income. They rent. Going to the other end, the green is about 10% of the city. They own single family dwellings. And the only thing available right now is $829,000 and up for a single family house that's less than 10 years old. So again, there's plenty of older fixer uppers, but that's what's available now. 20%, if you want to find a townhouse, there are plenty of those available. They start at $475,000 and go up. So if you have half a million dollars and you're renting right now and you want to go into a townhouse, that's what you're facing is half a million dollar cost. So the yellow, which makes up about 40% of the residents in Orem in terms of income, is what we call the missing middle and right now if you would like to buy something in your of that income category there the lowest priced condominium is 255 000 and up and there are only 10 percent there are only 10 of those units available in the entire city so for the amount of people who are looking there right now there are only 10. And the city hasn't issued building permits over the last 18 months for any of those kinds of units, the kind that we are proposing. So there are actually zero building permits issued in the past year and a half, and there are only 10 available today. So usually there would be something in the pipeline that would help feed the continuous demand, but right now the pipeline is empty. So we would like to satisfy that demand and help those afford who would like to own. So we looked at our site, it's 2.43 acres. All of the west side of Orem Boulevard is zoned residential, and the neighbors and others were very strongly opinionated that this property be used as residential. And so we want to accommodate that. We looked at what's around the site. It's very walkable. The big red blob in the middle is, of course, the project site. And you can see all of the things that are around it that would promote walking and convenience and public transit. Then if you look a little bit farther out, you might have to ride a bike or even drive. These local amenities, all these things are popular for almost all of us, whether it be going to the movies or going to BYU or Provo Canyon or golfing or Temple or the airport, Costco, all of these things are in high demand and we're right near the center of them. So we developed this site plan. We said, this is a unique opportunity. We think we can satisfy the missing middle. We think we can meet objectives that the city has. We think it would be compatible because it's residential. We think it's convenient to all of the commercial for work, play, shop, recreate, et cetera. And so we developed this site plan that is feasible. Right now, you've already mentioned it, Jared. Thank you. But we're just at the text amendment stage. We still have the items in gray to do in the future. So there will be another public input opportunity once we have architectural design done and a detailed engineered site plan. Right now, tonight, we're just looking to establish a framework. Real quick on these frequently asked questions, any short-term rentals? No. Any rentals at all? No. All of its owner occupied? Yes, 100%. Why the number of units? If you go back to the slide that showed the yellow missing middle that represented 40% of the city, the fewer units that we do, the larger they will be, and the more expensive they will be, and the smaller portion of the missing middle they will accommodate. You'll just have a smaller missing middle. You won't really accommodate the lowest end of the missing middle that is in the most need of something that they can afford. So we're trying to build something that's attractive and compatible, but also have an economy of scale, which is super important to motivate a developer to provide something that the missing middle needs. Will it qualify for state home buying assistance programs? Yes. And that's also something very desirable for first-time homebuyers. Will it increase noise? This is an interesting one because I actually had a conversation with an associate, David here, right after one of our neighborhood meetings at the site. And we found that sometimes our conversation in the parking lot was interrupted because Orem Boulevard was loud enough that we couldn't even talk to each other until that vehicle passed. And I thought, these buildings in a way will buffer the adjoining houses from some of that noise. At the same time, we're saying that there are still view corridors between the buildings. And I don't want to talk out of both sides, but on one hand, it will buffer some of the noise. On the other, we're still trying to preserve the viewscape that the residents enjoy. Enough capacity for utilities, water, sewer, storm, parking, traffic. Yes, yes, yes, yes. We're an engineering firm, and we've modeled or otherwise analyzed all of these, and the city concurs that all of these things have capacity. That's one of the benefits of repurposing this site is all of the infrastructure is already there. So there's a savings. The city has already master planned and built water, sewer, storm roads, the dry utilities, power and communications and gas. They're all there already. um yes and compatible with the neighborhood we feel it's a good transition between the commercial that's on the east side and the residential that's on the west directly to our south um are uh all designated rental and so there's also somewhat of a transition there where it's commercial other rental ours is owner occupied and then single family Some of the homes directly adjacent to us are also rental, and so there's a community of renters and owner-occupied in the single-family communities as well. So again, we feel like this is a reasonable transition. These are all the requests from the neighborhood meetings. We may have missed one or two, but we think we captured them all. They really want residential. They really want owner-occupied. We're happy to do a development agreement like was discussed by Jared with a previous item. Adequate parking, we feel that we've satisfied that, and I have more on that. Our impact to traffic is virtually indetectable, even though it's mathematically increasing. It will be insignificant. And closing the north access actually will improve traffic flows in the east-west direction that the neighbors thought was the most concerning. So that's actually an upgrade to traffic, and the only increase is in the north-south direction on Orem Boulevard. We want to get really specific with the neighbors. We had one neighborhood meeting where one of the residents directly adjacent, she actually joked that she might want to downsize and eventually live in a project like ours in her older years. She was tired of fixing her sprinklers. Like we all are. And she said, but please don't plant a tree right where my kitchen window is because that is my view. And so we want to be that careful to not do something silly, like put a great big shade tree that we all think is wonderful, but not for her. So we could just shift it and make everybody happy. So again, we've talked about this. It's efficient infill. I'll skip through power and sewer. It's all sized properly. traffic, again, the wait time at the intersection will be increased by point nine seconds. So it took me longer to say it than it will feel when you're driving. And there's still 12% reserve capacity until I think what was stated 2031. And that's mostly, it's partially us, of course, but it's everybody that would create that need. Parking. So we looked at the ITE manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, that is the national standard for parking design. And then we also looked at the city zone traffic study that was prepared about six or seven years ago. And both of them come to the same conclusion that 0.75 spaces per bedroom is appropriate. There was a quote in some of the Facebook comments. Look what happened off of Geneva Road, one and a half parking spots per three bedroom. Well, we're more than that. We're 2.25. So we're listening to that comment and we're hoping to be responsive to those types of comments. If you look at park on center, these are projects that are reviewed in your own parking study. These are all projects that are comparable to ours. They're either condominiums or apartments. And by the way, those are looked at the same in terms of parking. The first two on the list are parked less than we are proposing at 0.63 and 0.65 per bedroom. And they still have excess supply of 8% and 5%. Ours is projected to have excess supply of about 15% if we park it at 0.75 per bedroom. And then you can look at all the rest that are parked more than ours, the 0.87 and so on, the 0.91. Look at the excess parking that they have in their facilities. They are way over-parked, and basically that means we over-parked it in exchange for having less landscaping. We over parked it and now we have more asphalt. Now we have more snow removal, more cost, more asphalt, more striping. We don't want to under park it. We don't want to over park it. We feel like 0.75 is appropriate. That even accommodates visitor parking when we look at the 0.75. It's not just those who live there. The building height question. Right now, the PD 13 would allow buildings such as this one that is 25 feet setback, 35 feet tall. It would have a 54 degree view angle if you measured right from the property line. And so we want to compare that to what we're looking at. Our buildings, if you look at the site plan, the one on the angle, we took the worst setback, which is 50 in the top north corner. That's the very closest where the building is the closest to a neighbor. And that's even 50 feet, which is about twice, well, it's exactly twice as much setback as what's currently required. And so we're trying to emphasize that building height is a function of setback. So if we're a little taller, but we're a lot farther away, the impact is still less than what they would have in the current code. And so that's shown up. The previous view angle was this 54 degrees. And now we would enjoy 42 degrees or even 32 degrees with a 70-foot setback. All along the south side is about 70 feet of setback. The building that's on the angle, again, has 50 feet of setback at the worst location. But then on the better location, it's over 100 feet. It's about 110 feet. And so we tried to distance the buildings from the neighbors to the west. And the neighbors to the west on this, where the two buildings are, they're only seeing the end of the building. They're not seeing the broad side of the building. And they're still provided with view corridors around and to the sides and between these buildings. So again, we're sensitive to that. We also want to emphasize that we're not suggesting that our buildings would be Costco style where it's a big square box. The architecture would follow an idea like this, where the roof lines would be variable and at interest. So we want to have a 45-foot limit so that we have flexibility in design, but we don't think at all that we would everywhere be 45. We would do something more like this. Amenities. You can see what these are. We're not promising all eight of these. Whoa, six? Ten. Okay. We're not promising all ten of these. But these are the types of amenities that we would consider. So, EV charging is popular. Dog parks are popular. Exercise rooms are popular. All of these things. Solar over the parking lots is very popular and doesn't take up more space and provides shade. All of these things, renewable energy, recreation for children, all of these things we would consider. We would probably end up doing a smattering of these where we do three or four or five. But this is the type of thing we're thinking of. The text amendment, essentially, if you boil it down, covers these five things. Whoa, six. We're adding the residential. We're addressing the building height limit. We're addressing the parking requirement. We should spell owner occupied correctly. And that we would have an HOA. I haven't mentioned that yet. But we would have a strong HOA that would govern behaviors on the property regarding noise or offensive odors or lighting or pets or parking or landscape maintenance. All of these things would be governed by a strong HOA. This is a strong, I'm concluding now, this is a strong opportunity for Orem to address the need that they have identified. We've tried to work so hard. We've had three neighborhood meetings. We've had four meetings with staff. We've had eight other meetings with city leaders. And then we've had lots of phone calls and other things we've tried over the past year to really accommodate most not necessarily all but most of what has come to us. And we're still open ears, we still want to do more. But we also want this project to be affordable, not for half the missing middle, but even the lower half. And so we think it's unique. We've got sellers and buyers and location all lined up. So that's our thank you. I don't want to belabor. So if you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you. And I do want to start with a question for clarifying. You talked about parking and you talked about excess supply. What is your definition of excess supply? Are you talking over required, like they were required by statute or – go ahead.

So within the 0.75 requirement per bedroom includes extra that the analysis thinks would just be available as extra. So if there happened to be an event like a birthday party or Super Bowl on Sunday, everybody invites their friends and there would be extra for the uncommon outlier thing. But from day to day, week to week, month to month, usually there would be excess parking. I spoke with the people at Boulevard Apartments that are just half a half a mile south of us. Many of those people could end up moving here. I don't know. But we spoke with them and I asked them, I said, how does parking look for your facility? We're parked nicely. Well, tell me more. Well, on Sunday morning at six o'clock, when everybody's home and in bed, we have about 10 percent empty stalls. I said, perfect, that's what we would like to achieve. And so we looked at their parking demand and their parking demand, I think back in the day was two parking stalls per unit. And ours is almost two if you calculate it that way. But we did it again based on bedrooms. And so we of all people don't want it to be under or over. We're trying to do the right thing. And a lot of people approach parking in an anecdotal way where they just say, you can never have too much parking. Well, it'd be a shame to not have landscaping and have way extra parking. So we're trying to do it right and not just do it over. Does that?

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.

Okay.

Are there any questions from the commissioners?

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, we will move on to the public comment portion of our meeting. If you would like to come and speak on this matter concerning the adopting a new concept plan for the health center property could come forward, please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

I live in this neighborhood. And oh, Kim Nelson. Thank you. And I appreciate that they're trying to reach goals of the city. And But we honestly feel it's way too many people in a two and a half acre place. I have children in this middle who want housing. They're looking for housing. They're saving money. I get it. I understand that completely. But to force that many people to live in that small of a space, it's just not reasonable. It's not reasonable for... The parking, I know there's a whole lot of fluff going on about parking at 1 of the meetings. 1 of the city council people said that the number they were using is not appropriate to use. I have a son that has lived in 1 of these new developments. and had to park his car at our house and use the bike to get to work because he couldn't park at his own apartment. I'm sorry, that's not adequate parking. And you can put a six o'clock at this time, we went here and it was this, whatever. My husband drives for UPS. He sees it every day. And there's just... My other concern is there is absolutely nowhere for extra parking to go. That Orem Boulevard, where's the place they're going to park if they can't park at their apartment? It's going to be in the neighborhoods. Well, there are already a lot of rentals there and the neighborhoods are already packed. So it is an issue. And the other thing I think is they want owner occupied. There's no guarantee it stays that way. And we've seen that over and over. And along with that, if it is owner occupied, then you're talking about two wage earners generally. And a two wage earners means two cars. So even if it's a one bedroom condo that one couple is moving into, you're looking at two people who are working and two people who have a car to get to that employment. It's, it just, My husband counted too, and they say there's 170 whatever, but even on that picture, there's not that many parking spots there. So it is an issue. The affordability, it is an issue too. But I'm not positive they're going to be able to come in with that at that level anyway. So I feel like every time we talk about this, we get a, yeah, yeah, we hear you. We're not changing a single thing we're doing. We still want 94 people and we want this many condos and we want it this way. And we've seen a lot of that. We've seen what's going on around our neighborhood. We have tons of rentals. We know it's a need. Thank you. Thank you.

good afternoon uh my name is dan chambers i have a house a couple of houses away uh i appreciate the the guys uh wanted to build you know make it cheaper for the residents of orem but that's not the place that's a four-story building right in the middle of these homes i've seen a lot most of these places that are built are not in a residential area So if you look around, I mean, they're in the outskirts of town. They're not right in the middle of the city, you know, blocking views and so many people and parking. Every one of these guys is going to have friends over, family over, you know, Christmas and Thanksgiving. It's going to be a nightmare. It's right in the middle of the city. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Thanks.

Tyler keel is my name 1 of the concerns I have is the study that they showed with excess parking available is how many of those apartments were paid parking and how many of those residents are not parking there because they don't want to pay to park. So, those numbers may not be reliable when you're considering something with free parking versus something with paid parking. And then the other concern I have is that just because we're rezoning PD 13 to allow residential doesn't mean that it's going to be used for residential. So if we're going to make this residential, I prefer that we rezone it to be residential and not a mixed use that it currently is. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, would anyone else like to come forward on this matter? Okay, then we will close public hearing at this time. If the applicant would like to come forward and say anything in response, you're welcome to come forward now.

I'm sensitive to your time, so I'll make it brief. I live in a community that had a condominium complex added to it. just like this, called Canyon Brook Condominiums, just east of the Riverwoods shopping area. This was almost decades ago, and it had about the same number of units, not quite as many, but about the same number of units. And we watched it get built, we watched it get filled up, and we watched the types of behaviors and patterns that happened there. It functioned very, very well. Because of my church things, I was knocking on every single door in the whole place. We got to know all of the people who lived there. And I'm still very good friends with many of the people who I met back then who moved into that condominium complex. They were mostly young, where one might have been finishing a degree at school, the other might have been working. The ones I still am in touch with, one is a leader of a major construction company here in Orem. Another is the general manager up at Sundance. Another one runs Hoops Vision Center. These are accomplished, good people. And we... I remember when they moved in how happy they were to land in a place that they can own. And it wasn't overcrowded, and it wasn't a demand on the neighbors. And the trees are big now, and it's nicely fitting and screened. And so we're trying to achieve something similar.

Thank you.

One question for the... The question about paid parking, do you want to address that particular item?

You know, we're actually looking in the study. I know that not all of them are paid parking. I don't know if any of them are paid parking. I know that back in the day when the Hale Center Theater was running, I know that there was a problem with parking. When they'd have a busy show, there would be cars parked all over. So we want to improve whatever was happening in the past. And we're open to other ideas on how to guess what parking should be. If you try to anticipate a restaurant and one is a sit down and one is a Cafe Rio, the Cafe Rio is going to generate more traffic at noon. If you're trying to do commercial and you have a high demand commercial versus a dentist, not all commercial is the same. But in the case of condominiums and apartments, the study that the IT manual use is based on hundreds of actual already built cases. where they actually go out at different times of the day, not just 6 a.m. on Sunday, but they'll go out on Saturday afternoon or they'll go out on Monday morning or whatever. And they will basically count how many vacant stalls there are compared to how many units there are and give you back that data. And that's why that is a national standard that almost everybody follows. Again, as the developer of this, we have a huge interest in not seeing it be under-parked. We have the greatest interest in seeing that it be parked properly so that it's attractive to everybody who's buying or living there.

Just maybe misunderstand that. So how are the parking parking stalls assigned and are they charged for them or they come, you know, are they going to be after, you know, allotted based on units? How does that work? And is it just open park?

Well, for purposes of the text amendment that we're here for, it's open. When it comes along to doing the site plan, it might have a more specific proposal where if you have covered parking, for example, it's assigned because you pay for that amenity. But if it's not covered, it's open and anybody can do those. So I see it getting more specific as we get further along.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Okay, then let's have the public hearings closed at this point. And we need time for our discussion. We haven't even been able to start expressing what we're thinking and where we're at on this. As far as this goes, I think we do need to discuss it some. um my two personal biggest issues here that we need to discuss would be density and parking we may want to talk about density first because that affects parking i am particularly concerned about the density of this project on this lot because it's approximately jared it's 40 today about 40 39 and a half yeah just about 40 to an acre which is quite dense Sorry. You look like you really say something. Go ahead, Mike.

I'll finish. I was just going to extend on what's been said. Um, density, especially is probably as far as I'm concerned, the number one issue that we've got here, because with density comes everything else, the parking issues, the traffic issues and everything else. Um, for me, um, My major concern is livability for the residents that are already there. I see the opportunity, of course, for people moving in and things like that, but it all comes down to is it comfortable for the people who've been there for five plus or more years. So those are my main concerns is the density of the units, which then compounds the density of the parking issue, which then goes into traffic. I think we need to take out, as far as I'm concerned, a deeper look at what actually is going to be the impacts to everyone involved. So that's my two cents.

Yeah.

I have a quick question for staff. So we're looking, and this comment I think was made in the comments, we're looking at modifying the PD. We have other avenues as far as rezoning the particular parcel. Is that correct?

Yeah. I mean, technically everything is available to an owner of property. An owner of property, any piece of property in the city could petition to rezone, it all has to get reviewed. So their particular request was to modify the PD-13 as opposed to ask for a new zoning, a completely new zoning, because we don't have a zone that accommodates multifamily other than planned residential developments, which would be something like doing this. It would be the same kind of rezone. We would have the same output.

I guess one of the scenarios we talked about was potentially mixed use, which may be better with the PD as opposed to...

The PD-13 would accommodate that, where the PRD would not.

Right. So those are some of the concerns we have in going different avenues, right? Right. Exactly. Thank you.

Yeah, the PRD would change how the density and the heights and all of that works in terms of the residential. And that would have to be the applicant's choice, of course. Yeah. Yeah, we're here to either make a positive recommendation, a negative recommendation, or some modified recommendation to city council. Got that. Darren, do you want to say anything, Carl?

I think I'm with you. I think. I don't know that I'm opposed to putting high-density housing here. I think the density of this particular project is the concern that I have. I agree that there's a need for affordable housing, but given the concerns of the existing residents and the needs of the city, I think we need to be somewhere more in the middle. So that's kind of where I'm at right now.

Okay.

And I'm along the same lines, whereas I see the need for true missing middle housing. We need condos and owner occupancy, but this density, I mean, it might be a totally different discussion if it was a block on state street. I know that's very, but I mean, it makes sense in a different location than here and the parameters around Orem Boulevard. But residential makes sense for this land as well.

Just because I haven't said anything, I guess. I don't know. It seems like I'm supposed to say something.

You don't have to if you don't want to.

It's just your chance to weigh in. Okay. Go Cougars. No. So... Yeah, thank you. That was an excellent presentation, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into it, and I really appreciated the clarity and how you addressed everything, and I've appreciated the comments from the neighbors as well, and it sounds like you've tried to at least have a conversation about this, and so, and you know, I also think, oh, well, if not this, what goes there, right, I guess, and I think I think that you've persuaded me that residential is a good use of it and that trying to create some kind of condo makes sense. So there's a lot that I like here. I guess like everyone else, I also worry about the density. I guess I would like some numbers on this, some comparative numbers, right? You had comparative numbers on parking spaces and comparative numbers on, you know, traffic, and like people are saying, well, density, like those two things are a function of density, but what is the typical density, I guess, for other things in the area? Is this at the high end? It seems like it might be, and if so, is it possible to scale back a little bit? I'm not sure that that's a question that needs to be answered right now, but that would be the way that I would want to think about it.

Jared, did you want to?

I can weigh in a little bit. It's a good question. And what the typical density of, there's no such thing really that I could speak to and say, here's our typical condominium complex density in the city. Usually, and the question as to whether it's a high density or a low density, it's definitely on the higher side for typical density. Orem sort of projects. We see a lot more, it's much higher density than a townhome project would be, for example, but it's lower in density than projects that are near the Orem frontrunner station, for example. Those student housing projects would have a higher density. They'd be 60-something units the acre, perhaps. And I've worked on projects over my time in planning up to 100-something units per acre. Those are always in areas where there's high access or very easy access to transportation when you get above those units. We're right in a kind of a difficult spot at this kind of density where it's It's not enough density to afford to do structured parking, which can really let you get the parking out of the way and use a smaller site well. So it's harder in this kind of instance. But it's also hard to surface park without using up too much of the property. That's why the units are so tall. So the density is driving. That would be my opinion professionally. The density of it is, first of all, kind of determined from the other side, from the financial side that I'm not involved with. But it is driving some of the things on the site that are concerning to residents and to the commission, it sounds like. The height of the buildings is a function of that. But it's kind of right in the middle of densities. But it's on the higher side of residential density, yeah. One thing to keep in mind, too, as kind of a related... statement to that topic is about transition and buffering. It does maybe make sense as a residential site and maybe even for buffering from the commercial that exists between Warren Boulevard and State Street and this regular sort of regular single family neighborhood. Worked on a number of projects like that over the years. It's really difficult to get that right. And at this density, that's going to be difficult to do to make sure that it's a transition that's appropriate. that provides some buffering for sound and, and, and give some space for people to, uh, it might be a, it might be a good mixed use site in the future. The PD makes sense for that, but there's no way for me to know that's all just conjecture at this point.

Okay. We can talk about parking if we want to talk about parking or somebody has a motion or we can propose some other things. What,

I think for me it's still the same issue of overall density on the units for that area. I don't live too far from this area, so for me it's the traffic load that's always an issue. Orem Boulevard, I just don't go on it unless there's a light at this point. I mean, there used to be plenty of capabilities of hopping on there without a light. Now I drive out of my way to get to a light because at least I know I'm going to be able to get on Orem Boulevard. Again, I think for me personally, it's a density issue. I just think there's probably too many units for this. I also am a little bit concerned about the height issue as well. I understand the percentage view and everything else based on that degree. whether it's 40 feet, 50 feet or more. I totally understand that as well. And I'm coming at this from my background in developments as well. So this is not just somebody being, I've been in your position, so I understand. But I think for me, the biggest issue is the density for the residents that are there. I think it's the view as well. And I think also the traffic load. So for me, it's kind of a hard go at this point, the way it's currently situated.

Taryn?

I don't know. Can we ask the developer what they would think about, I don't know, Building a less tall building with less high density then, is that a feasible plan or not? Can we ask that?

Yeah, the applicant can come forward and answer your question.

Yeah. And first off, all the parking would be free per the study. We found it in the study. There aren't any paid parking stalls. As far as density goes, obviously we are flexible. It's not our way or the highway. That's not how it works. So we are flexible. If you look at building one, Perhaps that building could have a different height restriction than the other buildings because it's the one that's nearest the neighbors. Maybe that's also going to create fewer units. Keep in mind, too, that the density is not for sure what's going to happen. It's a limit. And so when these buildings actually get designed, they're going to get designed for whatever is in the highest demand in the market. We're going to look at square footage. We're going to look at number of bedrooms. We're going to look at sizes of everything. It's just a limit. That doesn't mean that we'll actually develop to that limit. So, yes, we're flexible.

But a limit also sets a ceiling and a potential for it.

It is possible. Yeah. So to answer your question, yes. Like I mentioned with the variable roof lines, perhaps a portion of the building could have four levels, but other portions have three. Or perhaps it's all three and some of the taller units have a lofted design for the great room on the top floor. So there's all kinds of variations that could be put to this so that it's not all 45 feet tall, all four story, a big nasty box. We want it to be beautiful and have variety.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? One thing that we have as an option in our toolbox is to continue this item. I'm getting increasingly concerned that this concept is so flexible that we don't know what we would be amending the PD zone to. There's also some other issues with the text amendment that states that it you want the text amendment to state that it has to be owner occupied and that is not legal for to be in our text amendment within our code and that needs to be addressed so there's one issue there already i think this needs i i think that's where i'm at and so i think maybe i will make the motion that we continue this item to give the applicant to a future date we're not going to even set a time i'm going to just continue this item so that the applicant can have look further into some of these things and to correct the text amendment as well as have a more concrete plan. I second. Sorry, Jared looked like he wanted to say something.

I'm just clarifying that the assumption being that your concern is it be more concrete and are you saying less density or explore options for less density?

Less dense parking ratios.

Those concerns that were raised.

Those concerns that have been raised in this meeting. We keep asking questions and I keep feeling like it could be, it could be, it could be. And that doesn't make me feel that I have enough information to make a recommendation for or against it to city council.

Understandable. I just wanted to clarify for them.

Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. I moved and Carl seconded that we continue this item to a future meeting. Micah?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay. This item is continued. Thank you.

Thank you.

And that will, yeah, do note, probably won't be renoticed. Will it be renoticed the same way? Because it will be a continuance.

We will renotice for it because of the way the continuance is done. Since it's not a date specific, we'll renotice neighbors.

Yeah. So just look for it in the future again. Okay.

Can I ask, what would the proposal have actually said? I guess I...

Like for the motion? Yeah.

What would the motion actually be?

You'd have to switch back to Jared.

Switch back to Jared's slides.

It's going to go dark for a moment. Hold on.

Okay.

We are still here.

I plugged the HDMI back in Beck. Can you switch me back over? Oh, look, I'm back already.

Yeah.

Already back.

Wow.

So fast. So that's the, that would have been the written motion. Okay. Okay. I see.

Um, adopting new standards and land uses and a new concept plan. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. We'll try to bring them back with a more specific concept plan and some address addressing some issues.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

Great.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Okay.

If there's no further business, then we can get a motion to adjourn. Unless you had something to say, Jared, before we end.

No, I've talked plenty. I'll be quiet.

Sounds good. Okay.

I move we adjourn.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, Carl moved, we adjourned, and Micah seconded. Micah?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay, we're adjourned at 6.51 p.m. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.