Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

August 27th, 2026. We will open with a Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Nelson.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda for tonight.

I'll make a motion to approve tonight's agenda.

I'll second. I have a motion for Commissioner Redding, a second from Commissioner Baker. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes, thank you. I would like to also have a motion to approve tonight's staff reports.

I motion to approve tonight's staff reports. I'll second it.

I have a motion for Commissioner Shirley, a second for Commissioner Patten. For tonight's staff reports, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That is also done. Are there any declarations of conflict or abstentions from commission members for tonight? All right, seeing none, we will continue. Item number one, a public hearing to consider the request of Braxton Rapp for a zone change on approximately 1.03 acres of land from the rural residential zone to the R120 zone located at 980 West, 1800 North. Turn the time over to Mr. Hawkins.

There it goes. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Jacob Hawkins from the Planning Department. So the first item for tonight is a rezone for this property here, located at 980 West, 1800 North. now as you can see here on the zoning map that this property is in the rural residential zone and what the applicant is requesting is to go to the r120 zone which is the same as all of these properties over here and the reason for that is because the applicant what they want to do is they want to develop their property in a way to where they can split this property into two And they can't do that under the current rural residential requirements. So the rural residential requirements right now requires at least one half acre per lot, and then has a lot width of 110 feet. And those are the two main requirements for a standard lot. And then for a flag lot, the same requirements apply but that does not include the area for the flag lot stem. And so that's why they wanna rezone it down to the R120 zone so that way they have enough room in order to do that subdivision. Now the main difference between the rural residential and the R120 zone is that the rural residential zone allows for animal rights such as cows, horses, pigs, et cetera, whereas the R120 zone gets rid of those permitted uses in favor of having the slightly smaller lots. Now, if I go over here to the general plan as well, you'll see that this property which is approximately right here, is in the single family very low density, which designation also includes the R120 zone. And so because the general plan includes that in its vision, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, and I can take any questions.

Yes, what is the width requirement What is the width of that lot and what is the width requirement for a rural residential half acre lot?

Yeah, great question. So the width requirement for this property, give me one second, let me turn on the line. So it's about 160 feet wide from end to end over here and about 270 feet from this way to this way. So I need 110 feet. For the width for the standard lot going this direction, and then I need 110 feet going this direction for the flag lot, and that is after the House and any setbacks are provided from from the existing. from the existing residents. Again, the most important one I think on this particular one is mostly going to be the net area for the flag lot because whenever the flag lot stem comes up and then opens up into the flag lot itself, this area outside of the flag lot stem has to be Half acre in the rural residential zone or 20,000 square feet in the r120 zone And so it doesn't quite meet the requirements for the are for the rural residential zone Okay, then that's what it's for.

Yeah Did anyone else have questions for Jacob All right, thank you, sir. Thank you This is a public meeting. Is the applicant here? And if the applicant is here, we invite you to come up. If you'd like to, state your name for the record. Not seeing the applicant, we will open this up to the public. If you want to come forward, please come forward. State your name. This is a recorded public meeting. Try and keep your comments short and not really redundant so we can proceed. Thank you.

My name is Gary Steele. I live at 1863 North 900 West. This property in question is in my backyard. And I have met this young couple, nice young couple. We've got a couple of young children. Welcome to our neighborhood. And I'm all for this zone change so they want to buy, they want to build a home back there so that they can live in it. And I'm all for that change. I think it'll be a good addition to the neighborhood. And I would rather look at a brand new home back there. They got a lot of grass that needs watered and stuff. So I just want to let you know that I hope you approve this, because I would like to see them be able to build a new home back on that flag lot. Thank you.

TODD BANDUCCI- Thank you. Is there anyone else interested in speaking to pieces? Come forward, state your name.

Sandy Sheppard. I'm the truster of the house right next door. And I have a couple questions. Like, where would the road go?

Right now that will be discussed when they come, they have to come back to this committee for the lots and sizes and everything else like that. So we can guess where that goes, but at this time that has not been presented to us. So we don't know. I would assume it would be on this, it'd be on the right side of that property because of where the house lays. And it would probably be next to the fence line. That's what I would assume. at this point, but until they bring a plan to us, we don't know for sure.

Okay, well, I just want my voice to be heard that I object to it, that I don't want it.

Okay.

Is there a reason, can you just say the reason why? Is it the road?

Because the road's gonna be right next to the fence.

Okay. Basically, it'd be just like a driveway for a single home.

Right.

Is what it would be, so. All right, thank you. Is there anyone else would like to come forward at this time? We try to not do that, but go ahead.

Which side of this property is the road supposed to be on?

We're not sure. At this point we don't know. It's just speculation because I do not have a vicinity plot plan and that's not what we're approving tonight. We're approving the zone change and everything has to go in those steps. So until he presents it to us, I don't know.

Oh, she's against them because the road's gonna be next to her property. There was a road on my side of the property along the fence, so they can put it on my side of the property, that's okay.

Yeah, and like right now, we don't know. Okay, thank you. All right, not seeing any interest from the public at this point on this matter. We will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back up to commissioners for discussions and or motions on this topic.

I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the request of Braxton Rapp for the rezone at approximately 1.03 acres of land located at 980 West, 1800 North from the rural residential zone to the R120 zone and adopting the exhibits findings, conditions and findings of the staff report.

Second. I have a motion from Commissioner Redding, a second from Commissioner Butler. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.

Mr. Hawkins.

Actually, for the next item, I'm going to pass it over to the director.

Director Daniel Cardenas. Yes.

Chair, do you read the blurb, what this item is about, please?

Oh, yes, sorry. This is a public hearing to consider the request of Daniel Judd Ray for a vicinity plan amendment on approximately four acres of land located at approximately 152 north, 1400 east in the R120 zone. Thank you.

Fantastic. Commissioners and public, thank you for being here. I can't think of... not for us, but for them, I can think of 10 more interesting and fun things to do than be here at Planning Commission, right? But we appreciate the public showing up, interest on their city, and thank you guys for the time that you guys spent here. We know that you guys don't get to be paid, and I want to recognize the and honor the time that you guys give to the city and to your neighbors. So what we have here in front of us, chair and commissioners, is a vicinity plan amendment, okay? I wanna be clear what a vicinity plan amendment is. A vicinity plan amendment, it is not a subdivision of the land. A vicinity plan amendment does not allow for somebody to build on a piece of land. A vicinity plan amendment is not a rezone. We're not changing the use of the land. A vicinity plan amendment is not more than the relocation or the change in the orientation, the relocation of the proposed roads that we have adopted in a document called the vicinity plan. So the city of Placent Grove took the work to create a And that vicinity plan shows the location of future roads for undeveloped properties. So an engineer grab all the empty properties in Placent Grove and start drawing where the best location for the roads will be around that time. for connectivity, number one, and not just pedestrian and automobile connectivity, but also looking into how properties could be developed in the future and not being landlocked. It's very important that we have a vicinity plan because that tells us also where the infrastructure for future development can go. City engineer is right here, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the utilities, if not all, they go on the right-of-way, on the roads. So all of these things are taken into consideration, and for undeveloped land, then we know where the roads might go. Now, when someone, a developer, a builder, comes to us and say, hey, I have this empty piece of land, and I would like to do something with this land, the first thing that we look at it is, okay, this is where the roads should go. This is where the utilities should go. And they can propose something different or follow the vicinity plan in many cases many cases when the vicinity when the road is moved Extra feet or is moving there. There's a little curve or something like that, but everything else is provided We don't bring it to the Planning Commission the vicinity that the spirit of the vicinity plan is being met so there's no need to do any amendments, but in cases when roads are being taken away and In instances when the connections are not there, it's important for everybody to know that so we can amend our vicinity plan, okay? Any questions so far? We understand what the vicinity plan is. All right, perfect. So what we have right now is an applicant, a property owner, and actually I'm gonna go to the staff report that you guys have. It shows something like this. The property owner owns the land in this area. How are we gonna call that color? Emerald blue, right? Or my eye see it emerald blue. Teal, there you go. That's why we need the feminine touch right there. Yeah, teal. My eye see it just as blue. What you guys see in the background, actually I'm gonna use the mouse for the people that are watching us on YouTube, what you guys see, the darker blue lines, that's the vicinity plan that we already have adopted, okay? That's what we have right there. Now, again, these little squares that you guys see right here doesn't mean that those are approved lots. That's a misconception that we have. When the engineer draw this, this is just for the roads. And then he put those lines right there. But this doesn't have anything to do with the zoning, the size of the lot, the width of the lot. They're just a concept idea where some lots could be located. Now, going back to what the Wright family owns is this area right here on the teal color. And what the applicant is proposing is to eliminate that road that goes right through the middle of their property, okay? Now, let me tell you a little bit about the surrounding areas, okay? I had the opportunity to talk to, I'm gonna bring it right here, to Metro Water. These guys have interest and there's an easement on the property right here. This is where the aqueduct runs. There's a huge easement right there. The reality of things, commissioners, is that a road or a public right of way of the city cannot be on top of that easement. Just cannot, okay? That's where the drinking water for a lot of us travels to right there. So a road cannot go right there. Now, let's take a look actually at the plat. This is going to help us a little bit to locate ourselves. This is the rate property. That's what the home is. And again, they own a couple of parcels right here. You guys can see right here. This land is owned by the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. You guys can see how it follows right here. It has the shape of an easement. It continues right here. So this land is owned by them. Now, the land connecting these two is not owned by the Metropolitan Water, but there's an easement in perpetuity right there, okay? In order for somebody to build anything on top of that easement or close to that easement, it needs to get the approval of the water, the metropolitan water, and that's why they need to be involved, okay? So again, the feasibility of putting a row on top of that is close to zero based on the easement and the aqueduct running right there, okay? Now, This is not here, not there, but I'm still gonna explain it a little bit. And you guys can see this strip of land right here. This strip of land used to be city-owned land. This is just for information. This is not the item that we're discussing today. This is for information. That land used to be owned by the city, and through a process, a legal process, that included the Board of Adjustment, the city did lend back to the property owner. Now, the rates were in the property owners around that time, but remember, these type of cases run with the land, not with the owner. Okay, so the city even realized that it's impossible for us to build a road right there because we cannot cross this aqueduct. So we did it or gave it back to the property owner and then there were some stipulations right there, right? Because this home also has access to right there. Now again, that's not what we're discussing today because in the vicinity plan, we cannot see, that that road is right there, right? So we're not talking about that. But what we're talking about is just the elimination of this road right here and this little stem right there, okay? Simple like that. Again, we're not talking about a plot. We're not talking about what they're gonna do with their land. That's up for them to decide, and whenever they have an idea, they need to come to us and submit an application. We're not talking a site plan, because we're not deciding right now where buildings are gonna be located. We're not talking about that. The item that we have in front of us today, again, is for the amendment of where this future road was supposed to be, but we also know that it's not feasible to go right there because of the aqueduct that we have, okay?

Any question, commissioners? Daniel, I have a few questions that came to my mind as you were presenting. Like you mentioned, and we want to emphasize that right here, looking at this map, these are what the city, back in the day, what year was that created, the vicinity plan, do you know?

Yes. Not by memory, but we put it right here. The vicinity plan was done We always put it right there, Jim. I didn't put it this time.

What we know is before 2014, correct?

Director Cárdenas.

No, it was about 2000.

2014 is the date on the document, at least, that we have on our website.

So 2014. Yeah. Okay, so 2014 is when The city just, again, as you emphasized and shared, is that this is just the city's plan for connectivity and accessibility plus sewage and drainage and stuff like that. Infrastructure, correct. And that's what the vicinity plan is, all right? So looking at this map right here, the city is not dictating any type of subdivision that this is what we want to see that's not the case of this vicinity plan it's just connectivity correct and this gives an idea general idea okay yes what year was the aqueduct like that that whole created or done do is it on there Yeah, so I'm just asking like when it became a viaduct versus an open canal.

1939. So 1939. And then, but the easement interest was reserved through the Canal Act of August 1890, but it was acquired in 1939.

Okay, many years ago before any of this was ever thought about. Okay, great. So I appreciate the distinction on this and the emphasis that this is a vicinity. We're not talking plats or building or anything like that. Correct, yes. And then the last question, you mentioned about the home on the north side of the previously owned city road. Their connectivity is to the south of their property, it's not to the west, correct? Yes. Does that also include their sewer and water?

This home right here has frontage, but the elevation is impossible to go to right here, at least right now. So the main access, and I'm assuming, yeah, I don't know for a fact, a city engineer can tell us where the utilities run for that home, but this is for sure their access. It's not on their property? It's not on their property.

So Aaron? So to answer your question, all of the utilities that serve all of the homes along 1400 East are in 1400 East. So there's no water, there's no sewer, there's no public infrastructure other than like a lateral line or something that would stub into the property. But the actual lines that serve those homes are all in 1400 East.

Okay, thank you. Aaron, I do have another question, Aaron. On that side, based upon engineering, the reality for engineering, How feasible would that vicinity plan the connectivity this water sewer and stuff like that be with the grade? That's out on that side of the city B if it were to go like the old the previous city vicinity plan going from You know from there. Yeah down so the

that nothing is ever impossible, but it would likely cost a lot of extra money and then we'd have to do things certain ways, right? The sewer is gonna flow downhill no matter where you put it. So you're gonna maybe have to have some go one way and some go another or something, depending on where the, where the slopes of the roads are. But if you put sewer in that, then you could do sewer. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Probably the bigger challenge is the water that goes through there. And I think it was outlined in the staff report, but there's kind of an elevation that our tanks, Our tanks are only so high and the state requires that we provide adequate water pressure for fire flow and in high peak conditions, we have to maintain a minimum pressure at the water meter for a home. And so if we put these roads up higher on that hill, they will not have that pressure and we won't be able to serve it.

And so we would not want to see that. Just to verify what you just said, in the staff report it says, this is the paragraph, areas that have public right of way elevation above 5,095 feet are not possible for the city to provide required culinary water service pressures and pressurized irrigation. The easternmost parcels of land owned by the applicant are located above this threshold So no additional development that would require water and pressurized irrigation services would be able to occur in the area. And the implementation of the vicinity plan would not be able to be completed based on the city's availability to provide services in this area. So exactly what you were talking about, Aaron. That's correct, yeah. So that's perfect. Last question that I have. So like that 1.34 acres, Daniel, that you're outlining right there. So if somebody wanted to develop any of that property right there, any of those property owners, the process is messy, right? Or it takes a long time?

More than just messy. Again, I haven't seen a chance where they... Metropolitan water has allowed them to cross there because we're talking about you got a gross sewer You got across stuff like that. That's the drinking water now Someone can submit an application and it's just not gonna be reviewed by blessing grove staff But we'll for sure send the application to them also because without their approval nothing's gonna happen Okay.

Thank you for answering my questions. My pleasure. Can you sorry Daniel? Can you bring up what's being proposed tonight?

Yes, of course It's this, so the elimination of this row going through right here.

That's it, that's all we're changing today? Yeah. Nothing above there?

Yeah.

But with the elimination of that road, that other development up above can't happen either? This one?

Yeah.

That can happen with the water pressure. And that can't happen? That cannot happen, yes. It can't happen anyway based on our ability to serve them.

So the applicant is just asking to get rid of the road and the city will probably change it for other, this other portion for other reasons. Okay, thank you.

That is correct, that is correct, yes. I wanna make sure that we're clear on this. The item that we have in front of us is for the elimination of that road. Just the road. Here, okay? A road that is on top of an easement. that double deck right there. And we're not talking about a site plan, we're not talking about a plot. I think the applicant probably would like to consolidate his property, but this is not here, not there at this point. And also the access that we were talking about right here is not here, not there. This is a vicinity plan amendment where we're removing this connection right here going north to south, south to north.

Well, and to clarify, This road doesn't exist. We're talking. No, no, no, it doesn't exist. None of this in blue exists right now. So I just wanted to clarify that.

So there's not existing roads. Basically, a vicinity plan is just a future plan on where to go. It's like when a kid goes to college, you've got a future plan to be a doctor, maybe ends up being a lawyer because he changes partway through.

It's just a plan to make an avenue to get things to go.

Just for roads. Yeah, and it's just for the roads only. So this is our future plan. We see some issues that won't work. This individual wants to eliminate those roads. That's what we're hearing. That's it. Okay. Any other questions for Daniel?

Nope. Thank you, Daniel. Questions, Commissioner? We're all good.

Okay. Thank you, Director.

My pleasure.

Okay, this is a public hearing. If any of the public would like, well, if the homeowner is here, we'll open up the homeowner first. Please address your name, and you're welcome to add anything you'd like to add.

Hello, I'm Daniel Judd Ray. I mean, I think Daniel summed it up good. We just want to consolidate that property and we need to get rid of that road and yeah, long story short. But yeah, we don't want to develop up there. We don't want roads up there. Obviously like that's our position too, so yeah.

Okay, thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing. If anybody else would like to come up and address, please state your name for the record. Try and keep your comments pertinent to the topic at hand. Daniel.

Just please be noted, commissioners, that if Staff always defends vicinity plans, and we want the connectivity. But again, because of the zero feasibility of building right there, and because of the aqueduct, then staff is proposing to remove this. But because those extreme circumstances doesn't mean that every vicinity plan in the future, and I want that on record, is just going to be taken out. Because we don't like to remove connectivity, right? We don't want to remove the places where the utilities can go, just in this specific case for the reasons mentioned.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Hello, thank you for the time. My name is Stan Reedhead. I'm sorry if I slur my words. I just was set with Bell's palsy just this week, and I'm like, thank you for the timing. My wife and I, Karen, own the property 162 North, 14th East, which is the one just on that corner where the cutout is. And so 50% of our boundaries bound this. We're happy that Judd Ray and his family are doing this. It's good for the neighborhood. I just wanted to state for the record, though, that before anything further is done, as this is a preliminary work, obviously, in his quest to build there, that there are two issues that need to be addressed. And so for the commissioners and staff and for the record, the boundary lines on that property, the historical boundary lines and the county boundary lines are, there's a discrepancy on the east-west boundaries of my property. And that has, right now, the historical boundary line on the east side of my property is 15 to 20 feet difference than the county. So there's a fence there. And then there's a setback on the road. If you zoom in on that, you'll see that all the roads on 14th East, all the properties line up except that one piece of my property. is bounced out because there's a driveway that cut it and somebody moved it back. Before anything final is done, I just wanna have for the record that that needs to be rectified somehow, whatever is gonna be decided. Mr. Ray and I are cordial. We've been working on this for a long time. The second thing is the easement. When this property was first owned by the Gurley family, And they sold off the piece to whoever bought our house in the 1970s. It was unity of title at that time. And there was an easement there. And the house was permitted to have the drive that went south. And that's the only access to the house. Further on in the Gurley family and before Mr. Ray had it, we had an adversarial relationship with the other owner who said he was going to block us, not permit easement. I'm going to get a court order and you can't use your driveway. And that's why my wife is not here, because she would be screaming his name. But Mr. Ray bought it, and he's been cordial. We really want to make this happen. But just for the record, whether you go by prescriptive easement or necessity easement or acquiescence that nobody has changed it since the 1970s, we need to see that in any final documents that there is a... surveyed and recorded easement for the property and I would like it to be for the length of the property since we go back to a shed that's at the our eastern edge and wide enough to get two cars in and out of there what you can't see on this is right at the corner of that and just a little bit on to the easement at the road there is a fire hydrant and And so there needs to be a little bit wider easement there than just one or two cars to go up that driveway. And as everyone knows, that area is not exactly the easiest in the winter to get up and down. I've sometimes not been able to get up there myself. Again, thank you very much for your time and listening to me and don't forget about us in the future. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Yes, Daniel.

Chair, we appreciate the comments for this, but again, I make emphasis that this is not what we're discussing today. The property line dispute is a civil matter, so that doesn't pertain to the Planning Commission nor staff. That's for to figure out with the county. So that's the item we have nothing to do with it. And the access easement is also not for discussion tonight. correct that's also a civil matter there's documentation that we can provide for them and they need to figure that out it's property property disputes between two neighbors it's for them to to figure that out okay thank you yes come on up you're going to get your helper to come with you

I'm Jason Hills. I live on 145 North, 1400 East. So we'll be kitty quarter neighbors. My reason for being here tonight is just to better understand the future of that property, what makes it worth making the change here. I don't have any opinion on it right now. I just want to understand. And I guess I know there's been a lot of, hey, we're only doing this one little thing. I'd like to understand it. And maybe I'll just say afterward, I'd love to chat with you folks about that as well. My only becoming aware of it at all is just the fact that the notice was placed in the neighborhood. So I'd love to understand that. Thank you.

Hello, my name's Kami Ray and I'm grateful for the opportunity to address this committee. I just want to say that the elimination of this road and this amendment and this plan is going to be an amazing opportunity for us to be able to have and build this legacy property where we will not be planning on ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT UP THERE. AND JUST TO MAINLY BE ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE THE PROPERTIES AND HAVE A BETTER ABILITY TO KIND OF PLAN OUT THE LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE VERY PROUD TO BE PLEASANT GROVE RESIDENTS AND TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF TREES. SO WE TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN THAT PEACH ORCHARD. AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THE LAND. SO OBVIOUSLY I'M IN FAVOR OF US ELIMINATING THAT ROAD.

Hi, I'm Doug Heater, property owner at 96 North, 1400 East, just south of the property in question. Apologize for my casual appearance tonight coming straight from work. which is another strange thing to say, but I have really just a question, because there's so much being said here that has a lot of implication, and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask these questions. I'm gonna ask them anyway just to get them out there. What is the implication for other properties with the elimination of this vicinity plan or the alteration of this vicinity plan? And also, I'd like to understand better, what is the current plan preventing any of the homeowners on the east side of 1400 from doing, because that may have implications with what I can do with my property down the road. Thanks.

The vicinity plan is just a roadmap if we need to develop where the utilities can go, where the roads can go, because the roads can only go in certain areas. And so it's just an overall plan. It's like a roadmap to go to college, like I said earlier. And so this vicinity plan, it was drawn up as the best alternate route to get utilities, to get cars in and out, to get vehicles to flow. And it's done as a big overall site. We try and do the best we can. It was done a long time ago. and they get modified from time to time as we need to. As it was said, the property that you see way up on the east there is not serviceable by the city. So that's kind of an interesting thing that we talked about at another time. Right now, you can see where the proposed roads are, and that's just to make sure that we can have connectivity, sewer, water, utility, power, and car access. So vicinity plans are there as a future roadmap to have how we want our city to develop. That's what that means

So is the implication that any development on any of those properties would require a similar process to remove or alter those plans?

Yes, you remove it, you alter it.

So any of those property owners, if they have an idea of how to develop whatever the development they want, they would have to come to the city and they'd have to do the same process. And so if it alters the vicinity plan, then they would go through this process. If they're just wanting to build an additional house on the property, somehow they'd have to come to the city and do an application. So the implications of this are that there's not gonna be a road from, what, 250 north down to 200 south. That's the only implication.

So by removing that section on the property in question, you're effectively eliminating the entire stretch there.

Yep, that's it. Okay. That's it.

And it's crossing. Is that, does that imply that at some point a new vicinity plan has to replace the current one? Yes.

Yes. And, and Joe, the, the properties to the south, you can see where the proposed roads are. Those are still in effect as proposed roads. And right now it's just a roadmap and a proposed road. So if you wanted to develop, you could see if your development falls within those lines, it's very simple. But again, we're just. This is a discussion, probably better to come in and talk to the city about it, and they can lay this out very much for you and not occupy everybody else's time at this point. But Daniel and Jake will be very glad to go over that with you. Fantastic, thank you very much.

And you would get another notice, just like you got on this property, if anything was to happen. Any alterations. There would be a public notice, correct.

And if someone wants to build a house, we go through some of the same processes. Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hello, my name is Joseph Reed head I'm not a property owner. I'm the son of the owner I have been living on and maintaining and the the house that was there and I just wanted to come up and say that Even though he said that it wasn't about the property dispute. I respectfully disagree I just wanted to say that I feel like the more changes that are made while the dispute is still going on the more that it just appears like our side is a non-issue and the status quo is maintained. I feel like the original changes and plans that were made came with stipulations that weren't followed, and those aren't really being addressed here. And so with the dispute in place, If we halt on the changes and make the stipulation to say all property disputes need to be cleared before we can make any changes to the property it at least gives us a chance to solve that. So I do think it is actually part of this. If you disagree I understand that's just what my opinion is and I wanted to have that on public record.

Understood this body has no authority to do anything with that. We can say all we want We have no authority to to do that.

I recognize that but you you you can I mean you can defer to make the change And until that's done or you can say you won't decide on it right now again The decision is yours to make changes and the more changes that are made the Maybe I'm not stating this. And you know what? There will probably be other meetings. So thank you for your time for hearing it out.

And I would suggest that you get with the county and work with that. You can talk with Daniel. He can show you processes to do that to get that started. As far as I can say anything that we want, this is nothing. We have no authority to direct any of that. But we like the public hearing. We want to put it on record. OK.

Thank you for your time.

And I appreciate that.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

My name is Richard Batson. I live at 216 North 1400 East, and my property runs just north of where the orchard is. so I have a common boundary with them. Just so people understand, from what I gather on this, we're talking about a road.

A future road that is not built yet.

But that road is key, not just for these properties, but for all of the land that is east of 14th East up to where the BLM land is. And there have been numerous...

Okay. Thank you.

I don't even know how to use a pen light. There's a button by your finger.

Ah, okay. All of this land that's to the east of that is in question. That's what... they really want to do, and the problem is the canal company isn't allowing them to cross over that easement. But when people are looking at it, you can't just look at it as being a small road. You have to look at development of all of the property to the east of 14th East to where the BLM land is, which would mean a considerable change to the neighborhood over time.

And right now, that is not developable. The city cannot put water and utilities to it, so that is not a developable property at this point.

Right. Right. The city has said that they're not going to cross over that easement because they don't want them to cross over the easement.

They can't. We don't have the water pressure or the services.

Right. Well, I'll give you an example. At my house, I have 39 pounds of pressure on my water, which is on the low side.

Correct.

And because the elevation there is so high, comparing to where the tanks are that feed it. I really can't get much more than that in the way of water pressure. For those to the east of me, it would be a real problem. That just wouldn't work.

Correct. It won't work.

Anyhow, I just wanted to point that out just so people are aware that this is actually a bigger issue than what it appears to be here.

Thank you.

Also, for the record, Chair, I would like to say that there's city boundaries right there. You can see them on the map. We have a city annexation declaration adopted document that shows that we have zero interest in incorporated any land into the city. We won't be able to serve it. So we have zero interest in do any annexation. That's county land, and if the county wants to provide a way to develop that, that's up to them, but we're not thinking about annexing that into our city. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you. Okay, at this point, I don't see anybody else.

No, okay. I see somebody making eye contact. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back up to the commissioners for discussions amongst ourselves and our motion.

If there's no objection, I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the request of Daniel Debray for a vicinity plan amendment located at approximately 152 north, 1400 east in the R1-20 zone and adopting the exhibits conditions and findings of the staff report as modified by the conditions below. All the final planning, engineering, and fire department requirements are met.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Nielsen, a second by Commissioner Butler, Baker, sorry. Butler. I called him Baker, not Butler. Anyway, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say aye. Okay, that motion passes. All of you that were here for that, if you want to leave, you're welcome to. If you want to stay and hear me talk, you're welcome to stay for as long as you'd like. Our next hearing is a public hearing to consider request of artistic dance project for conditional use permit for use 6830, special training and schooling located at 675 West Garden Drive in the Commercial Sales District CS2 zone. We will turn this over to Mr. Hawkins.

All righty. Thank you. All right. So this final item is going to be a conditional use permit for a dance studio located at Tabitha's Way at 675 West Garden Drive. That's this property right here. A little while back, they rezoned their property from the neighborhood commercial, which is this brown color, to the commercial sales 2 zone, the CS2 zone. And in the CS2 zone, use 6830, which is special training and schooling. That is a permitted use in the zone, only as a conditional use permit. And so that's why they are here tonight. So as we can see here, there is the single family zone up here, R18. There's also a couple homes over here. And actually, let me head over here. So we can see a couple of those homes that kind of surround here. But overall, this particular property, we've got the movie theater over here. And we've got a couple like auto service and some retail over here. just to the south of this property. So the proposed use, it kind of fits into a pretty minimal level of intensity of a commercial use compared to some like the auto service stuff that we have nearby. Anyways, with that being said, there are seven units here in Tabitha's Way. There are five on this side, and you can actually kind of see where each one is. So one, two, three, four, five. And then we have Tabitha's Way on this side, and then Tabitha's Way is on the bottom floor, but there's an extra level above Tabitha's Way, and that's where this dance studio is proposing to go. Now for the dance studio, the applicant is proposing to mainly have classes for private instruction from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and then 9 to 5 on Fridays, and 9 to 2 on Sundays. And then they'll have regular classes that are open to a regular class from Monday through Thursday from 3 to 9 p.m. between 6 to 20 students per class. Now there are gonna be three different dance studios inside that unit, so they can have three classes at a time. So that can lead up to having a maximum of about 60 students plus three teachers. And so the parking requirements for such maximums would be two parking spaces for every three students plus one for every employee, which is about 43 parking spaces. And there's 104 parking spaces on the property and all of the other existing uses add up to a required amount of 47 parking spaces. So there's plenty of room for the proposed use And so staff recommends approval of the proposed use with no other conditions other than what's already provided in the code, such as parking requirements and noise restrictions. I can take any questions.

So Jacob, you said that a dance studio is allowable by condition.

Yes.

Can you specify for the record why that is the case?

Yes, so in and pardon me if I'm answering the question wrong or anything like that So in the in every single zone we have permitted uses and there are conditional uses as well Permitted uses are just uses that are permitted outright if someone were to apply for a business license That would be something I would be able to sign off on pending that they have enough parking for said use and Conditional uses are similar. They are permitted uses in the zone, but they have to come before the Planning Commission so that way the Planning Commission can figure out what kind of conditions might be necessary for said use, depending on the level of intensity that it's gonna be. And then with the Planning Commission's approval for those conditions, I can then put those on the business license and they can conduct their business.

So in this case, it's pretty much the condition is we have enough parking spaces.

Yeah.

OK. Any other questions for Mr. Hawkins?

Jacob, thank you. Thank you.

OK. This is a public hearing. We invite you to come up. State your name for the record. Applicant first are you.

I was hoping you'd do that. I wanted to know the talent we're talking about. Thank you.

We could do a dance. If you're both going to speak please state both of your names for the records and who is speaking so we can differentiate that in the meeting.

We'll speak one at a time.

Thank you.

Hi I'm Jenna Lynn Mehmet and I am one of the owners of Artistic Dance Project. We are currently business owners already in Pleasant Grove. We have a studio on 700 South next to Blade HQ down there in that business district. And so this is just going to be an extension. We've had quite a bit of growth so we had to quickly find some additional space to expand the clientele that will be coming to this location are teams and companies that are already existing. It's not a recreational facility. We will not be doing, like having an influx of classes with frequent changes. So a lot of these dancers come to the studio for three to four hours in the evening. So the traffic is quite minimal. We do have a drop off times around three or 3.30. And I just wanted to clarify that. Most of our dancers don't drive, so it is a drop-off pickup. We don't have a place for parents to hang out or anything, so those vehicles will not be staying in the parking lot. We have worked with Tabitha's Way on designing a drop-off and pickup program and how we can really facilitate that so we're not... causing congestion Also, we have only one class where we have adult drivers and that is from 9 to 10 at night It's an adult top class so all the rest of the students will be mainly be dropped off around 3 or 3 30 and then they'll be picked up around 7 or 8 so Clarifications

My name is Maddie Beegley. I'm the other owner of Artistic Dance Project, also mother-daughter duo, fabulous. I also wanted to add that this location is actually so perfect for us because our pickup and drop-off times are perfectly aligned when Tabitha's Way is closed. So that actually worked out amazingly for us. And the only time we have crossover, it only affects six students. And we've already met with Tabitha's way to arrange a place and we're gonna put cones for those five, six spots for their parents to come and pick them up. And we're really excited. So I hope you are too.

Can you point out on the map where the pickup drop off is going to be? Yes.

Okay. So these businesses over here, all of them will be closed except for one. So we're going to want it to be an extension of our other building. And if we have any new clientele coming, we want them to go to the existing place.

Okay. What type of dances?

All dance. We do tap, contemporary, ballet, hip hop. There's also going to be acro, meaning like tumbling. Yeah. Those types of things. Yeah.

I just got a boy who did ballroom for 12 years.

Oh, yes, ballroom. We do ballroom. We love ballroom. So many of our former students are on Dancing with the Stars right now. It's really wonderful. Yeah.

How many instructors?

Total? Well, at a time.

How many instructors are going to be here for parking purposes?

Three to five, yeah, at most.

Okay.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, this is public. If you wanna come up and state your name and anything that you have to say.

My name is Mike Carter and I'm one of the founders of Tabitha's Way. And I just wanted to say that this really fits us very well. As was stated earlier, our primary hours of operation are from 11 to two. And so we've actually looked for business owners that fit that I mean we use a lot of parking during that 11 to 2 time so we've looked for business owners that are not there during that 11 to 2 time which fits absolutely perfectly with these guys in addition to that when the building was built we two years ago we built it with 80 parking spots which as I recall was more than was needed for the zoning and Since then, I believe it was in May of this year, we added an additional 24 parking spots. So there is considerable parking for the zoning. And keeping in mind that Artistic Dance has typically about four or five people that are there, three to five people. Everything else is drop-off. It's there's just not gonna be any type of apartment problem that we can see so We were thrilled to be able to work with them. Thank you for considering this tonight.

Thank you Okay, there's only two more of you we will close the public hearing at this time bring it back up to the commissioners I

I'll move the Planning Commission approve the request of Artistic Dance Project for a conditional use permit to allow you 6830 special training