Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, uh, commissioners and public. It's time to start the uh the meeting. So, we uh we'd like to have a pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Patton. Please, everyone rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Um, do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I have a motion to approve approve tonight's agenda with a continuation with a continuation of number two to be continued on February 26th. I'll second. I have a motion by Commissioner Trickler and a second by Commissioner Reading. All those in agreement say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's staff reports? I make a motion to approve tonight's staff reports. I'll second it.

I have a motion from Commissioner Reading and a second from Commissioner Patton. All those in favor say I.

I. Any conflict? Motion passes. Are there any declarations of conflicts or abstensions from any of the commission members? Seeing no, we will continue. Um here item number one is a public hearing. It's a legislative item. It's a public hearing to consider request of Scott Dent for a zone change on approximately 1.98 acres of land from RR residential rural residential zone to the R110 zone located at 1381 North 600 West. And we turn it over to you, Jacob. Thank you. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Jacob Hawkins from the planning department. So, the first item that we have for tonight will be a request for a zone change from the rural residential zone to the R110 zone. The applicant is Scott Dent and the property to be reszoned is at 1381 North 600 West. So, here's the aerial map. Right now, the subject property is about 1.98 acres in size and has been developed with a single family home up here along 600 West that you can see. And they've got a couple accessory buildings as well. Um, most of the surrounding properties are also developed with single family homes or are anticipated to be developed for single family homes. Here is the zoning map. Um, this is one of the last properties in this immediate area to be reszoned from the rural residential zone to a single family zone. Uh there are others se there are several other types of single family zones in this particular area such as R18 to the south uh R112 to the east R115 to the northeast and then R110 up here to the north. Now a little

bit of background for the applicant's request. This section up here on the zoning map in the R110 zone, this is the Mon Dreams development which the applicant has been a part of developing. Now, this rural residential section of land is the last remaining bit of land needed to be developed for that making Dreams development. And so, now that this property is uh on the market, um making Dreams is going to try to continue this out and then connect 750 West and 680 uh West together and then try to create a couple extra lots from uh the remaining land left over um at some point in the near future. But for right now, this is just going to be a reszone um just so that way they it can pave the way for them to make the subdivision viable before they start work on the subdivision. Now, the general plan supports the proposed reszone uh as this area is located in the single family low density designation. Now this designation is intended to serve as a buffer between the medium density and the uh very low density designations. Um and so uh the density the residential density in the low density area is uh anticipated to be about 2 to four units per acre and it includes the R115, R12 and R110 zones. And so because the general plan supports the reszone of this subject property and because the subject property is proposed to be in a zone that is similar to other adjacent zones, um staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change and I can take any questions.

Are there any questions for Mr. Hawkins? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing and as it is a public hearing we open up to the public if Oh, the applicant. Sorry. Is the applicant here? State your name for the record, please. I'm Scott Dent. Uh, I actually live here in Pleasant Grove. Uh, I don't think there's really much to say. Have a lot of objections, but like to move on forward with this.

Okay. Any questions for Mr. D? Okay. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing. If there's any the public that would like to come open, come up. Seeing none, we'll close the public to the public and bring it back up to commissioners for discussion or a motion.

I make a motion. I move the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the request of Scott Dent for the reszone of approximately 1.98 acres of land located at 1381 North 600 West for the rural residential zone to the R10 zone and adopting the exis adopting the exhibits conditions and findings of the staff reports. I have a motion from Commissioner Reading. I'll second it. I have a second for Commissioner Patton. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We will move on to item number three. As item number two is continued. This is a public hearing for a code text amendment section 10-15-38 fencing standards citywide. Um, this is to consider of Pleasant Grove City to amend the standards. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, the next item that we have for tonight is a proposed code text amendment from staff uh or from the city to discuss fencing requirements. I forgot my lightsaber today, so I think we'll have to stick with talking about good oldfashioned fences that go around the edge of a property. Um the fencing requirements that we have right now are good. They're simple to understand. They're easy to enforce. Uh but there's one section in particular that sticks out. Just like to the tune of one of these things is not like the other. And that's this section here, letter E. Um where it's talking about grade differences. And why would we be talking about grade differences in a section about fencing? Uh and that's a good question. And that's where we need to figure out what we're going to do with this section and what kind of clarification that we want to establish. Now, this section says that the new development right here is to be the party responsible for providing suitable screening to help mitigate a difference in grade between the new and existing residential property if that grade difference is greater than 3 ft. And so I think that's why this section is in the fencing ordinances to mitigate the difference in grade between properties, especially if there's a significant difference in grade. The problem that we have with this section of code, however, is less about why it's there and more about like how we're going to interpret it. Uh, for example, um, it says if that grade difference is greater than three feet, but is that three feet in height across the whole property or is it within a couple feet of the fence line? It's not well defined. And when we have someone from the public concerned about if a fence is necessary or if it's doing its job to properly provide screening for their property, they come to us with this section in hand and we have to determine what suitable screening is

defined as. And so here's what we came up with to uh except I don't have it here. Um give me one moment. I'm going to pull it up. Second. Got to log into Dropbox. Okay, here we go. All righty. So here's what we got. Sorry about that. Um, so first the beginning portion of this subsection under grade differences, uh, you'll see where it says where there's a difference in the grade of properties on either side of a fence, wall, or other similar structure, the height of the fence shall be measured from the natural grade of the property upon which it is located. Um, so this section doesn't really feel like it belongs in the grade different section.

And so we bumped that to right here to have its own section for fence height right here. And then now that this is separated out, uh, that allows us to establish a little bit more clarification for differences in grade. Um so suitable screening um as it was talking about before um can now be defined specifically as new development shall be the party responsible for providing a retaining wall fence masonry wall or suitable screening to help mitigate said difference. And then I've got a section down here where we can define suitable screening otherwise. Um and then we can establish more clarification for differences in grade. Uh so uh let's see here. Um the so the difference in grade instead of it just being 3 feet uh between properties or something like that, we'll define that as a 3-ft difference in height uh within 25 ft of the property line on the subject property. Uh and then with that we can also provide a little bit more uh information about like what new development means um what subject property refers to and also provide flexibility for if a fence is really even needed um or if the neighboring property owners can use an existing fence that's already there. And so that's the bulk of what we really wanted to change for the fencing requirements. Um although since we have the opportunity, there were a couple other sections that uh we felt that we could look at as well. Um but before I move on, are there any questions so far about this section? Yes, I do. Um when you talk about uh retaining wall, fence, or masonry wall, what determines if it has to be a retaining wall or a fence? because I can see that being, you know, if I've got my property and I grade it down, I put in a

short fence, it still doesn't do much because I can slope my property on my side, I still might have drainage into the other property. So, how do you determine whether it needs to be retaining wall or just a fence? Um, on this it says either or. So, I I don't want that to be something that just gets ambiguous in the future again to look at this a second time. That question too, is it another text code? I mean, um, in regards to water basically, right? Drainage. Well, drainage, water, and then sight also because if I put a sixoot fence, but I slope my property down, I can still look over the fence to my neighbors, right? Versus if I put retaining wall, my property runs flat, then my six foot fence gives them the privacy.

And so, I don't know if there's something we can put in here to to define that or not. We Oh. Uh, yeah. So, we could um provide a little bit additional clarification if you'd like. Um but ultimately the grading and drainage requirements are already established in the code under our engineering requirements. And so our engineering department whenever they come in like when a property owner comes in and they're messing with the grading of the property, they have a requirement that all of their drainage needs to stay on their property and be sent off uh down to the street or something like that. But

yeah, and so this stuff is just to help in assistance with that. But um that requirement is from engineering. Just I I can see that as being something, and if engineering covers that and it's something that's addressed earlier, that shouldn't be an issue with this in my opinion. Can you clarify why 25 ft was used? Um so 25 ft is the typical rear setback requirement in the R1 zones. In the rural residential zone, it's typically 30 feet, but you know, if there's going to be a difference in 25 ft from the property line, that would usually be substantial enough uh for the requirements to be met to put up a fence or something like that.

Okay. So, why wouldn't it be shorter? because of if it's height lines, if it's if it's different in heights, like if it's in my mind, it would be like 10 feet or something like that to make it so that the heights would be equal or provide the proper screening. Right. So this is this is 25 feet or less. Or less.

Yeah. So like if there's a difference in grade of like you know 3 feet within 10 feet of the property line, this would still need to be met. Now, if we want to lessen the requirement, say, oh, you don't have to put up a fence un unless if uh it's only within 10 feet instead of 25, that could be an option. Um, but I figured right now this would just give us, you know, one of those defined uh points that we can come back to.

Thanks. Um, on that same thing, in my mind, from the rear property, 25 ft makes sense, but the side property is a lot narrower than that. Should we say within less than that distance if it's a side property versus a rear property, or is that just getting too convoluted?

Um, I don't think it's as much of an issue on side property lines. uh or at least I would assume it's not as much of an issue on side property lines because uh neighboring properties often times, you know, like say if you've got a street and the side property line coming between them, they're kind of going up the same direction and so it just like kind of continues that where if it's like rear yard on one street and then the rear yard on another street, that's usually the more uh significant one. the the case in point that brings that to mind is Blossom Hill because those side lot side to side step four feet from property to property all the way across that. So that's the only reason I brought that up is I've looked at that development

and and I don't want that to be something that that causes us issues, right? But I think we're covered.

But yeah, e even so I think like requiring that fence is probably for the better. And the way how this is all written out, it gives us a way for the developer to work with the neighboring property owner and be like, "Hey, do we need this fence? If we do, can we use an existing fence?" You know, there it does allow for some flexibility. They would just have to work with each other and then come to us and say, "Hey, here's what we agree on." But just baseline, um, otherwise the this requirement would just come into play. And my understanding is it's um if it's a whole new development going in, this is going to be taken care of in engineering and everything.

This is like if there's a new lot amongst old or it's new meeting established where there may be problems and yeah, this is this is for any property that's going to be developed whether that's a whole neighborhood, whether that's a single lot. And then I'm assuming the 25 ft that just safeguards for water drainage. Yeah. Like a retaining. Yeah. That's the typical setback for the rear property line. Yeah. So are are have you touched on C or are we moving beyond C? We're we're talking about any and all of this right now before we move on. So just looking at C suit suitable screening um specifically

um evergreens. So there's a really really popular evergreen arborite. Sure. That is used a like by most people nowadays when it comes to screening. Okay. And if it's uh it says one tree for every 30 linear feet, are we is that if that's the case to to do an arborite typically it's uh six to 15 feet tall. Okay. And then it can be a three foot or four foot wide tree. And so most people that are using them for screening, they're getting 12. They're getting 8 to 12 for

no for the entire area. So if you're doing okay, you know, if it's a 30 foot fence line, they're doing at least nine, eight to nine trees in a row to create a screen. So if it if we're just making it so that it's tree for every 30 linear feet. That won't work for arborite. That won't work for a lot of trees. So, I'm ju I'm just saying that I can see it for a for a regular tree. Great feedback. Yeah. But not not for a screen or a hedge. Sure. Do you have any comments on that?

Is there time? Yeah. Um yeah uh great feedback on that and um that's something I'd love to you know make sure actually is going to work. you know, this is something that uh you know, I just want to make sure that there is enough screening uh without choking any trees out by

and I can understand that it just so you can do you know if it's a if it's a a bush or a shrub because you know arborites can be considered that um you're going to have to change that verbiage right there so that it fits the code. So now that we're bringing this um item to you guys, there was some there was some discussion what suitable screening is. Um I I I've seen a case recently there was some great differences and one of the neighbors, the new neighbor just got fed up with the uh request of the existing neighbor and he just went and put a line probably like 25 trees next to each other, right? and and that's actually not uh yeah it created a mess and it's going to be a mess in the future. So we we can keep the just give given an idea what we think would be okay for cable screening in regards to trees. If we feel like a a fence and the wall is enough, we can also get away with it, which is is something that we we were struggling with that trying to decide it. Should we actually put suitable screening as and come up with a with some trees or something like that or should we just stay with the wall and and because at the same time um yeah it it's it's complicated to

I I hear what you're saying and I think that trees do need to be included in that because this past summer I I dealt with a lot it's either or. Well, it's it's either or. Yes. And and the reason why I say say that trees should be included is because the cost for some of the fence is so prohibitive for many people. They turn to trees automatically. They turn to to bushes and shrubs automatically because I can't pay 30 grand for a fence, but I'm I can pay, you know, $500 to $1,200 to get that screen of a of greenery. So, yes, it is important.

Good. Okay. So, we'll we'll keep it. We'll keep it. Um, but one every 30 is also a uh one that we just proposed right there, but we we're okay to to switch it to change it. Could you say uh screening or living screening as designed by some kind of professional? Because different plants, different shrubs going have different spacings, different numbers, and there's a lot of variation in that. You don't want to force somebody to go hire a landscape architect per se, but you know, planning standards is established by local nurseries, by a professional, by something just so there's a standard in there that we can call somebody for the different type of plantings.

Yeah, there's a profession at nurseries. Usually there's a person right there that is is not a landscape architect.

No, but that's why I say as designed by a professional. So, I I I see the the cause for concern because I interacted with a person in the public who lived next to somebody who did that what you said. They just put a bunch of of deciduous trees like oak and maples, just a ton of them in their backyard because they hated their neighbor and it caused such a mess. But then somebody new moved in and that neighbor who the existing neighbor, they loved the privacy that it created because like, "Oh, sweet. We don't have to worry about a fence or anything like that." But then somebody new moved in, cut down all the trees, and they're like, "Oh, great. All of our privacy is gone because the neighbors cut down all those great trees." So, they were came in looking for a screen that was a tree and stuff. So, that is important. and and they can if it's a if it's a deciduous then yes one for every 30 feet or 20 because you can get some deciduous trees that are like 15 to 20 feet wide. So if that's changed

to like 15t 15 feet wide and then if it's a conifer or a shrub then that can be brought down to you know within 30 feet 30 linear feet you can do like you can get junipers that are three feet wide. So that's 10 per 30 linear feet to create that screen. So if it's if it's deciduous, yes, 15 feet. If it's evergreen, shrink that. What? Um I would do like seven or eight per 30.

Yeah. And and deciding between deciduous and evergreen is a huge, you know, they're they're so much different than plant growth. That's why, you know, you could put deciduous and evergreen in there or as designed by a by a professional. Professional being nursery. I don't know how to do that. Be a little bit more specific on exactly. I I don't remember the name of the professionals out of it. That that's a requirement. How I don't know. Can we leave professionals out of it but just have a standard for the trees?

What would be difficult because it's, you know, I would have to rely entirely on what a professional says, which is good. people who just go to the greenhouse and they're like, "We want," you know, they get some advice from the the greenhouse. It's not per se professional. They're like, "This is what we want." And they get sold. Let's do this. Let's keep with the presentation. Then we bring it back to you guys. So you guys decide because the professional came from you guys and you guys decide if you guys want to keep it, move it, change it. We'll take the changes that you guys propose. Okay. I have one more question on that. C evergreen trees shall have a minimum. Oh, minimum height. Sorry, that's seven feet. I was reading that maximum.

No problem. Uh, any other questions for this section before we move on?

Okay. All righty. So, the other sections I wanted to talk on are the newly established letter E right here. Uh, so once it's been broken off uh from the rest of the grading differences. So, if a commission remembers, a while ago, we had an applicant request a conditional use permit to permit a 12- foot tall fence on his side property line. And the the planning commission only had the ability to grant a 10-ft tall fence as measured exactly where the uh fence was placed even though there was a twoft retaining wall inches away from the fence. And so taking suggestion from the planning commission from that meeting, we could include a provision that allows the height of a fence to be measured from the finished grade of the property. Or if it's within one foot of a retaining wall, then we can measure from the top of the retaining wall.

That makes sense. Are you going to have a like a maximum of how high the retaining wall is to put a fence on top of that? No. Retaining walls are meant to just hold back the earth, right? So they will only ever be as tall as what they need to be. Um from the way how I understand it. So you're just saying it's fine if the retaining wall is 5t high then they can do a 10 foot fence above that. They would have to come to planning commission for a 10 foot fence but yeah. Okay. Whatever. Okay. Do we want to have it as a as a conditional use permit?

I believe so. Um, it used to be a lot shorter um, in the past. The fencing requirement maximum height I think could have only ever been like 8 feet or something like that and that's all that we could do. But then we added a provision where it could go up to 10 feet if it had that conditional use permit.

Yeah. And and we've written it here to have up to 10 feet with a conditional use permit. I'm just trying to imagine what we would ever say knowing the rules around a conditional use permit to say you can't build a 10-ft fence. Yeah, the 10-ft fence is uh generally only permitted by conditional use permit if it is deemed necessary. Like, oh, hey, there's like this super difference in grid and you can't protect like the screening of your property or something like that. Like there's a little bit more of a reason uh than just I mean, yeah, but I don't know that that's a legal reason to say no to a conditional use permit.

You have any we did revamp the fencing code. It was a six foot only and we heard everything was 8 feet and then we vended to go to 8T with conditional above that. Yeah, our good friend Tim had a lot of opinion on it. Um but but I'm just talking about unconditional use permit where we're protecting general welfare or the citizens that has to tie back to something else. I don't think that being necessary for screening and that kind of stuff. Yeah, I'm having a hard time saying like if somebody comes in with that conditional use permit for 10 ft, in what scenario could or should we say no or is there a better way to write this so we don't leave it up to a conditional use permit?

We usually don't don't say no to conditional use permits, right? I mean, we usually say yes, but it's an opportunity for the neighbors to be aware that there's going to be a tall fence right there. Um, however, this is not the portion that talks about the all the the the height of offenses. We, if you guys see, we started at letter E, I think. Yeah. Well, but and I'm talking about going up above, too, because he brought up conditional use permit here. But if you go up to the language we were just working on. Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll have to amend that stuff. That is is uh No, it's in the amendment. Oh, in the amendment. I see.

Go up to your Yep. Down. Sorry. Down. right there in D. It references the conditional use permit right there. Yeah. And it's that's just copied from letter A, right? Letter A and B. So, but if we're going to change it, is it worth looking at that? No, it's it matches now. Exactly. It matches what it says in A and B. Correct. Yeah. I think his question is, uh, do we want to take this as an opportunity to Oh, is that a recommendation from the planning commission? I I don't know. You guys discussed it. That's a recommendation. We can we can take a look at it. We just recently changed it probably like two years ago or three years ago. It was six the maximum. We decided to do it at 10. That's why we just continue the

more than it's been more than two and then we we've really started to try to knock out a lot of conditional use. Pretty sure it's been more than two. I think Tim's been off more than two years. I don't remember exactly, but some of you guys were in the planning commission where that happened, right? Yeah, the three of us were. The one thing about it though, you get a 10 foot fence. You have to have some engineering with it because the wind loads on that and everything else. You're going to have to it's not just going to buying some some 4x4 cedar posts because the wind's going to tear that thing apart. And we're requiring everything above seven feet to have a building permit already, which would address a lot of that. Right.

That's true. Best to have building permit if it's over seven or over eight. How's that? So, yeah. So, let's let's come back to this one. Um, let me finish up the last one that I had because I only had one other one and then we'll bring it back up to us for discuss and then we'll bring it back up to you guys and we can kind of go from there. Thank you.

Uh, so the last one that I have is uh getting a little bit more clarification for this section right here for large animals. Uh so right now this section requires approval of a six-foot pre-cast concrete or masonry wall to be installed upon approval of the preliminary and final subdivision plat. And it grants city council to wave the requirement for said wall. The city council no longer reviews residential subdivision plat. So there should be another way for the requirement of the sixoot wall to be waved, which I think could easily be done administratively. And so I just use the same language as I used uh for the grade differences right here. Um and this gives them an opportunity to uh just talk with each other and then come see us and if they both agree on it then we're okay with them not putting up a wall or changing it or whatever they need to do.

Do we have a signed agreement for that? Oh, notorized. Okay. Yes. I don't have a problem with that. Perfect. Okay. And then that's all that I had. So, I'll take any questions, pass it back up to you guys. If you want to discuss anything else, I can scroll through here. Okay. Um, yeah, let's discuss the uh the 8 10 foot. Do we want to be able to have 10 foot fences? Um, do we want to call it eight? Well, we're still discussing amongst us. All right. Keep them honest.

Yeah, it's this is a public hearing. We'll open it to the public. Seeing none, we'll close it to the public and bring it back up to the commissioners for discussion. So, does the lay of the land matter? Like I'm trying to picture that's what this is discussing because Well, I know that, but I mean for like the actual 10th foot fence. Am I like missing something if we just allowed it? 13T. Yeah. Yeah. I I I can't see a reason for a 10 foot foot fence being needed anywhere. But that's me personally,

but like that one that did come, the lay of their land seemed to like slope and then they wanted a higher fence. The neighbors didn't. Well, and that was um did on that one, did they have a retaining wall? There was a retaining wall and so there was a retaining wall. weren't allowed to put the fence on the retaining on the top of the roof because the height and now they could they could now. So that creates Yeah, because it created the height. So in that instance that would have given them what an additional two feet two feet two or three. Yeah. I was thinking it was a three-foot retaining wall something like that. Go to eight foot or three foot retaining wall. We wanted that.

Yeah. But then the neighbor was complaining because they had that Airbnb or whatever next door and it would have Yeah. One neighbor didn't want it that high. The other one because of that Yeah. wanted some privacy. So So that's my only thing is the retaining fence. I mean the retaining wall can vary on how high it is. Yeah. Oh yeah. So if we kept it the same and made them come and get a building permit and a conditional use for a 10 foot, then we can avoid

any situations where they would build on top of a retaining wall. Just eliminating the conditional use and just making it up to a 10 foot fence with a building permit. Yeah. Because when would you say no legally? Well, to a 10 foot fence. I don't u well what if it was a retaining wall that was we always fairly high and then they're putting 10 feet on top of that like would it what would you what would you rely on on the conditional use side of things to say no that violates well that's a good point of welfare and safety or that's a good point no it looks bad we don't want it we have to have a reason to say no and that's the hard part but that's true what are the legal reasons to say

which is kind of the which is kind of the problem with condition use in general and why we're trying to get rid of them is you don't say no to them a lot because you need a pretty good reason to say no and they don't normally exist. I was trying to find my notes on that. Do you remember though there's four things that you can say no for for conditional use? Yeah. Four years ago, three years ago, not that long ago, but I couldn't I couldn't find them. Even the code says that the last time it was changed was 2011, but I know for a fact that I

I mean, could you is it too convoluted to say something like like tinfo fence is fine unless the retain retaining unless it's going on top of retaining wall that is higher than so many feet then it needs a conditional use. But then to Todd's point, I don't know How do you say no to that anyway without just saying no that's nice or like usually they are can I make a comment? Yes.

So there are limits on fences right uh uh there are limit on fences. The the code the code says that and it's not it's more than the land use code. The building code says that if you build a fence taller than seven feet, then you need a building permit. That changed in 2011 because it used to be seven uh six feet and then went to seven. Anyway, but there has to be a limit on the on how tall you can build your fence. Uh and I think we we we limited at 10. We uh we limited a 10 and we made it a conditional use because when you do a conditional use, you still don't deny it, but you allow the neighbors to know what's going on. So, you put them on their notice. I think that's the why we did it. That's the only way to put them on their notice before they build it and see if they have any concerns because every specific one may have concerns. That was the the the reason if I remember correct again, it was it was recently but not that recently. So, There has to be a limit on how tall you can put a fence. Okay? And I think we at that time we decided 10 was was okay the maximum. However, we needed to let know the neighbors that they were going to get a 10-ft fence. It's not very typical. I I guarantee not you guys haven't seen a 10-ft fence around it, but we were like in specific cases they can go to tent, but they need to let the neighbors put them on their notice. And the only way that we can do legally to put it under notice was to do it through a conditional use permit. I think that was the reason why why we do. Okay. Now we presenting something right now. Um but it's for discussion. If we if you guys want us to go take it back, work on it more, we for sure do it. But if you guys want us to go and review the notes

from the previous meeting, we can for sure go and do it. Uh it's up to you. Like some specific direction of where you would like us to go. So with the height I can like I'm just thinking of the existing fence. If the existing fence is on a higher property then it's kind of a non-issue. Go right.

But if the fence is on a lower property that's where the issue is. It's more for the person below than it is for the person above because the person below when they're looking up, they're only seeing the retaining wall and the bottom of the fence, right? But the people above, they're looking into the property, but usually the the new neighbor will come to the one on the on the higher. That's when the problem comes. Yeah. Correct. Because if the new neighbor comes on the on the lower ground, there's no problems. People won't complain about it. Yeah. So the only case where they will complain is when the people come on the higher level and that's why we're saying okay whoever is on the higher level and the new one that comes in then is the one responsible to put on the wall.

Yeah. And that and so and that's exactly right. Um most of the time and and this this goes back to what I was saying earlier about the the screening and stuff. it it's most of the time the existing the existing property owner they have somebody build up and then all of a sudden they're like I don't have any privacy and so they're the ones that are coming seeking that shade or seeking that that screen and stuff and so if the person that has the retaining wall I don't see a need for 10 feet on their side because they're the ones that are coming here they're the ones that are building you know that one can be a six foot fence instead of a 10ft fence. It's a

unless the case that we had presented here at planning commission when when they were doing an accessory apartment, the lower property was doing an accessory apartment and the accessory apartment was sticking up, right? And and then it was privacy from the accessory apartment toward the other one. And and the question came here at planning commission, where do we measure the fence from? And we and and and I say at this point from finish grade and and I know some of you guys were wanted to allow the applicant to build the the fence on top of the retaining wall

and you thought it would be a better a better solution. So that's what we're doing. Not counting now from the from the from the grade but counting from the top of the of the retaining wall because around that time if you guys remember we because we were counting from the from the grade we were counting the four feet or the three feet of the retaining wall plus plus the the extra amount. So now we're saying okay 10 if eight feet is whatever we're going to count but we're going to count in the actual fence height. That's that's what we're trying to do. So, so looking at a new development shall not include building additions or accessory buildings.

So, a it's the uh second sentence. New development shall not include. So, that experience that we had, it was an accessory building that was built. That would still be a problem causing the issue. Oh, but that's for So, I think am I misinterpreting? Yes. I think Oh, jeez. Um, sorry to be a stick in the mud. No, it's okay. That's what we're here for. Um, we're all just here to be development includ way to look at what we do.

Yes. So, in this case, uh, what we're saying is if the grading already existed, if there's two homes already right there, we're not going to require a new fence required because this is a requirement. We're going to we're not going to require a new fence when someone is doing an accessory apartment or a garage in their backyard. That's what this part is saying. So, it doesn't include that. Okay. Otherwise, imagine all the all the permits that we have for for for a or a garage or a shed or or or a sorry is that that word is always hard for me with my accent or um a shop or something like that. And we will automatically require a fence that will be too honorous on us to do something like that. That's what that part is trying to say.

Okay. Because my neighbors would have loved that if that was the case. Yeah. Just out of curiosity, we had requests for a 10-ft fence that you can recall. So, I don't think it's an issue to even I can't see anybody building a 10 foot. I think just the one that we brought to as a conditional use permit that one time. Yeah. In memory. So, so I think D reads I'm okay with how it reads. ES exceeding 8 ft shall require a conditional use permit up to maximum height of 10 ft. And then that that forces the notice also. And

I mean it forces the notice to have the neighbors come here to listen to us say, "Yeah, you can build a 10ft fence." I was going to say the same thing. All we're doing is setting ourselves up for people for that except now we allow it on top of retaining walls. You're okay. You're okay with it setting it up so the neighbors come in, listen to the thing, and have us just say, "Yeah, you can build a 10 foot fence." Well, and we have that lady come up and yell at us that we're paid under the table. I know. I I wish we were. Like, no, just kidding. Not wish we were, but jeez. And that's on record.

I'm just saying we don't make any money being here is all I'm saying. Um, so do you think do you think neighbors are going to come in and be like, I can't believe you let this 10 foot fence go on top of a 8 foot retaining wall. How did you not let us know that? How is that legal? So, we kind of are getting it from both sides if if something crazy like that did happen. I don't know why somebody would want to put a a 10 foot on top of a rain a 10 foot fence on top of a high retaining wall. No, it' be extremely expensive, too.

If we get one of those every five years, I think it's worth it. You guys remember someone who did? Yes. Tim, so he participate heavily on this one. It's difficult to make a fence. No, it is. It's extremely crossed. I don't think we're ever going to. It's so rare. I don't mind leaving it in and then telling them they can still do it

just so we know. If you guys want us to go and look at our previous previous uh staff report and previous notices, we can we decided to to do it again. There was a decision that we made not that long ago. It wasn't five years ago that it was more recent than that. Um but yeah, we had a reason why to do it like that. We didn't review it because we didn't consider it's not hasn't been a a problem so far for us. So we just carry the Okay. At this point then, commissioners, I I bring it back up to us to either continue, approve, or deny. So, if we continue, we need to let them know why what we want to have added to it.

I think we do need to fix the C. Yeah. C needs to be worded, right? Yes. So, C needs to be adjusted. And just thinking about all the I didn't Okay, so if this is a new development, let's go through. So I'm going through this C. So one tree for every 30 linear feet. That's too big as far as one per 30. I think that can come down to one one per 15. One per 15. One per 15. And then 10 feet from And do you do you have to call it a deciduous?

Deciduous. make it a deciduous tree, shade, ornamental, deciduous, whatever you want. And then uh 10 feet from the property line. I can understand that. But there are some deciduous. So if you're dealing with some deciduous trees, they can be as close as 4 feet to the property line to the fence. and they won't be affecting the fence nor the foundation or anything like that just because they're more column because they're more columner and they're not going if if you're doing a big old you know maple tree and oak tree yeah you want it 10 ft away from the property line but you can get and then

you can get big evergreen and big pine trees that want to be that too. So that's a problem and and it's up to and it's but but in consideration as a as a screen, you know, they're automatically going to be putting it away from the fence. And then minimum of cal calipiber of 2 in. Anytime you're dealing with a 2in caliber tree, you're dealing that's at least a $300 tree. Yes.

So minimum 300. Nowadays, it's pushing 350 to 450 of a 2in caliber tree. So that's a lot of extra cost that we're forcing on. And so it can be a minimum caliber of like one and a half inch tree. And then the evergreen if if they're if they're doing the evergreen um you can do within 30 feet you can do like nine. So here we're saying that they have to do a minimum amount or maximum. Is that minimum?

Minimum. So if it's if it's that then it would be a minimum of eight. If they're if they're creating it as a as a screen eight feet apart eight total eight in the 30 feet in the 30t eight eight plantings within 30 ft yeah and should I say eight plantings and they can decide what they are yeah deciduous noniduous well well evergreens so evergreens those are eight within 30 feet to create a screen

Yep. Y and those automatically get about six feet tall. Minimum six feet tall. Some of them can get up to 15 20. So here's what I've got so far is deciduous is one tree for every 15 linear feet. Um and for deciduous including shade or cal or shade or ornamental trees minimum caliber would be 1 and a half in. And then as for evergreen and then 10 feet. So instead of 10 feet from the property line, yes,

draw draw that in to about four feet from the property line because if you're dealing with a horn beam or something like that, they're very narrow and they're they're a columner. They won't be doing any damage. Do we want to make exceptions for like say large root systems or something like that like oak or whatever? Uh I guess you can make that, but that's on the property owners. that's going to be that's going to be damaging it, you know, down the road and stuff, right? And that's kind of what I want to avoid at least to an extent because we get a lot of people who come in and say, "Hey, my neighbor's tree is encroaching onto my property." And we have to tell them that's just civil matter. There's nothing that we can do about that. I I don't know. That's

because I mean your maples are going to have a 15 foot drip line, right? 10 to 15 feet. Well, it depends if we're in the middle. So some of the some of the maples can be like seven feet from the drip from the line from the trunk. So seven seven and a half feet. But if you're dealing with some of the columner, you could do a columner oak and that's only about six feet wide. So you're only dealing with a root roots system of three feet from the trunk. So you'll see a lot of those against houses right now popular. I see I've got a crab apple between my front yard that's got a 40 foot spread on it branches. It's old. Yeah. Covers my whole front yard. Yeah.

So that's why I say when it comes to plants, it's really hard to define because there are so many different types of plants, so many different types of growths. But but if we're forcing minimums, like the developer should know. I don't know that that's a lot of I don't know. I mean, most homeowner I don't know problems, but most homeowners want to avoid these problems we're talking about. And I'm just and I'm just thinking if they're creating a sha a screen, they typically don't create a screen of a tree with a tree that's more than 10 feet away from the fence. They're not created that's not a screen. It's closer. It's, you know, it's that planter box that's three to five feet deep

and they're just sticking it right next to the fence. So maybe you should have a section that's just colmer trees because there's diguous and there's evergreens that are both col that's a better definition between deciduous and cer deciduous. So you can do columner deciduous c o l u u m n a r deciduous trees. Spell deciduous. I didn't know I was spelling. You're doing great. So coler deciduous trees at one per 15 and four. Yeah.

And then evergreen uh at 8 per 30. Same setback. four the same the same the same distinction. Yes. Deciduous like like evergreen you have a Colorado blue spruce, right? You're going to want a lot of feet. Sure. Arvida what he's talking about. You're two feet. Yeah. So you could set back columner columner uh evergreen evergreen and that can be two feet. That be the same as a col near deciduous though. Uh no, it's a little bit bigger. The the root systems are a little bit Yeah. But not not drastically.

Not drastically, but And then do we have to say anything about bushes or we can just leave bushes out? Okay. Okay. So, you want to read that back to us, Jacob?

Okay. Uh so for columner deciduous trees we would have or we would permit those at one tree per 15 linear feet. Minimum caliper would be 1.5 in. And for columner evergreen trees they could do eight trees per 30 linear feet. Um at 2 feet from the property line uh minimum height of seven feet. That that'll create that that will create the screen that we're talking about right here without causing problems. Yeah, I agree. I like it. And we're talking specific screens, right? There's a whole

Yes. Yeah. Because people are going to be using fruiting trees. Yeah. We're talking We're talking screens. And what that does, what that language does for staff in the city, that makes it so that if there are complaints from, you know, neighbors and stuff like that, you can confirm, is this a column or oak? Is this a columner or horn beam? Is this a column or buckthorn? Got you know, and you can say that's what they planted, right? Perfect. I I trust the way just as long as the spelling's right and that was up to me. So, yes, I I think we're we're okay with the way it's it's written. Okay.

And I think Yes. So, let's bring it back up for a motion. I'll make a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend that the city council approve the request for Pleasant Grove City for a code text amendment to city code section 10-15-38 fencing standards and adopting the exhibits conditions and findings of the staff report and is modified by the following conditions just the modification that was discussed today. Second. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Reading and a second by Was that Butler? Commissioner Butler. All those that have favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. With that, uh, we need to review the presumably willing to approve the minutes from our last meeting of January 8th. I will approve Gohead. I will approve the minutes from January 8th. I'll second it. I have an approval for the meetings for general rates from Commissioner Trickler and a second from Commissioner Patton. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay, I take a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. So moved.