Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I do.

I did see that today. Yep. Took me a second.

There's good options. I think that's a win for everybody.

Excellent. New guy.

Have youledge recently? It's been a few months. Would you mind Absolutely. Tonight probably. How are you doing tonight? Good. How are you all? You know, you're really

No. Well, congrats. You don't look a day over I'm not there yet. Always aim. Leave it to Steve always. Hey Steve, can you get next week?

That actually means someone cared. horse. One thing that criticisms are valid suggestions

for telephone. It's what the V stands for. DSA. Okay. did not know for sure. this year.

Nope.

Just so you know, that means court went two days with the wrong time. I think they probably figured it out. Maybe was just reaching.

Is that someone's door? Is that like a new door or is that extra? No, that's a basement. See that house where that It looks like they have two doors that are exactly the same. Like a screen door and then a sitting door. Either they change up the screen door and lean the old one up against the house.

Let us know when you're ready, Steve. We're ready. Okay. Let's call to order the planning commission for uh March 10th of 2026 here in Roy City. We will begin by with the pledge of allegiance and that will be led by Commissioner Tanner.

I aliance 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. Right. We are going to uh change the order of items here. We're going to do the oaths of office first. Um so we will go ahead and turn that over to Britney.

We can do it all at once and we can stand for it. if that would be better.

Repeat after me. I do solemnly swear or affirm I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support obey and defend that I will support obey and defend the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah and the Constitution of the State of Utah and that I will discharge the duties and I will discharge the duties of my office of my office with fidelity with fidelity.

Thank you. Was that your good pen? It is. That pen. You've got the good one. Thank you. Yeah, you touch it. You better give it back. Thank you.

There's that and your pen.

All right. Thank you. Uh, now we'll move on to the declaration of conflicts. Do any of the commissioners have any conflicts that they need to declare tonight? Nope. Seeing none, we'll move on to agenda item number three, which is approval of the February 10th, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Any discussion or a motion is in order there. Uh, just quick discussion on line 61. Uh, I am marked as having seconded a motion, but I was absent that night.

Great. Now I figure out who it was. So, let's let's maybe table these. Okay. What's that? Is there quite a few changes? No, just the one. Are there any others that you had, Anna? So, sorry. because I can you can approve it with the corrections as mentioned. Do we know who made the second on that though? I'll I I'll find out. Okay. So, we can make a motion to correct that.

Dave, did you want to bring up your point? Pardon? Oh. Um I looked through the uh the minutes and found a couple of typos, I would say, and uh brought them to uh uh Mr. Parkinson's attention. So, I uh second the motion. Okay. So, you're we'll actually have you make the motion if you're good with that. Okay. Okay. I'll second. And we have a second. And that's to include the typo corrections and the second of the motion on page or line 61. Line 61. Right. Okay. We have a motion, a second. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Right. That passes unanimously. We will move on to agenda item number four which is a public hearing to consider amendments to title 10 zoning ordinance amending chapter 13 mixed use changing building height from an overall height to a number of stories allowed for all building types within the BPSC SNS and UC zones and we'll start with Steve. Okay. Um again this is kind of a continuation of what we talked about um in a couple work sessions. Um, I liked how the last work session went. So, we'll just kind of go through it just for the members of the audience have an understanding. So, I'll divide it up by zones and in those zones, what buildings are allowed and then what heights of buildings because I know there's been some concern or confusion on that tall buildings are going to be next to residential. So, I figured this was probably the the best way. So the BP zone which is next to the uh the airport um again most of that when you see the two diagonal lines on the north side of the in the blue everything south of that is the airport has to be zone something but nothing will ever get built there. So this is the Omega and currently the America first buildings and then a few just on the north side of 4,000. So changing the the building height from 80 feet to eight stories. I'll get in what the height of each story represents a a little bit later. But so from the discussions um eight eight stories. The only one that's changed to decrease is the row homes. Some reason we have an 80ft row home. Um so this would be three and a half stories rather than eight stories. uh within the station south zone. Again,

this is down by the Front Runner station. Um part of it on the west side of the tracks is already being built as town homes. Um so you kind of have an idea of what it is. UTA does own some of this area. Row homes are the only thing allowed in this area. So right now it's 35 ft. Change it to three and a half stories. Um, some of this is a topography wise, you're on a hill, so they could have basements that daylight or come halfway out. That'd be the half story. Or if they wanted to have a little half story in the in the roof line. Um, so that would be that change. Station central. Uh this is mostly UD do or UTA's property on the east side of the tracks and on the west side it's that muffler building their property. Six stories is what's allowed in that zone again with row homes but changing it from six 60 feet to six stories and then row homes down to three and a half. the station north which is north of 4000 in between the trail and the tracks and south of Hinckley and 4000 only bu two building types are allowed there general stoop so it's really mostly apartments and all but the of the three station zones only the station central allows for any type of commercial station north station south do not So it's strictly apartments, row homes only in the general stoop or this area allows for six story or 60 feet until you get to a certain point. Then it drop down to

50. Uh the planning commission and city council approved a development agreement for that development proposed development to have everything at 60 ft. Um so staff just why don't we just put it six stories and if that development gets built that is what it is. If it doesn't, then the next one has doesn't have to come through for that development agreement. And then row homes being three and a half. The zone that kind of takes a little bit more of of Roy, it used to be the um community commercial. Now it's been changed to urban corridor. Most of it is along 3500 West andor Midland Drive, but there are a few on 1900. As you can see, those buildings could be 40t tall and we're just changing it to four stories except for the row homes, keeping them at three and a half. So, any questions thus far? Okay, continuing on. So, the type of buildings and the height minimum and maximum per per story. So, storefront and a general stoop. Well, storefront and limited bay. Um, minimum first ground floor is 14. Maximum could be 24. But in that, anything 18 feet or taller than 18t and taller, it counts as two stories. So, if you're going to if you want 19 feet, that's a twotory ground level. And then stories above that would be nine and 14. in a general stoop and large format. Uh 18 and nine on the ground floor and 14 and nine on the the stories above. And these are all consistent with what the downtown zones um were approved at last

year. And then civic buildings and row homes. Um civic buildings can have a a 20 foot and 9 foot minimum on the ground floor, but again anything taller than 18 is two stories. and then 9 and 14 for the the stories above. Any questions? If not, my recommendation would be for forward a positive recommendation to city council for adopting.

Okay. Any questions or discussion before we go into public comment or public hearing? Um, one thing I do want to just reiterate, Steve, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but um, the overall concept here is not to necessarily allow more height. While there is a little bit more height that could be allowed, the overall concept is to give some flexibility, especially on the ground floor in like a commercial type building, a a 10-ft ceiling isn't really viable. That's that's not going to be utilized. And so, it does allow them to go up to 14 feet without that counting as a second story. But if they go beyond that, um, so they can get kind of the elevated ceilings that you see in a lot of office spaces or, uh, commercial type things. And then the other area where I think this could have an impact is kind of the top floor of some of the living spaces if they wanted to have uh, more of kind of a luxury um, part of that um, building, something kind of a penthouse, that kind of things. The rest of these, I don't really see that they're I mean, it's just not economically viable to really do a whole lot in between there. So that's kind of the concept that we've kind of talked through in our um discussions and our work sessions and things like that is just to give a little bit more flexibility. And the alternative is you know we we had one development come in our developer come in and it would have cost them about $900,000 more to follow the set 10 foot heights and so they wanted to do a development agreement. Um kind of my perspective and and the rest of the commission obviously has theirs. Um, but development agreements aren't always the best way to do um, developments. I mean, yes, we could go down that road where everything's a development agreement with the council, but if we can do things in the code that just let people know upfront what those standards are and then we're not having to do those one at a time, um, that's where I'm kind of in favor of this approach to give some of that flexibility. But I think that just kind of lays some of the groundwork of the discussions we've had.

Any other thoughts or comments? If not, a motion to go into public hearings is in order. So moved. Okay, we have a motion to go into public hearing. Motion to go in public hearing. Do you second it? I second it. Okay, we have a second. Um, all in favor? I Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We're now in public comment. So, um, we'll welcome members of the public to come up and speak to this. Um, when you come up, please state your name and your address for the record and then tell us your thoughts. We'll give you correction just name and city.

Okay. Name and city. No address. Okay. Name and city. And we'll give you up to three minutes to speak. Um that's almost a page worth of notes um that you can share with us. Um we'll give you that opportunity. And then if you can um if somebody before you says what you want to say, you can just say I agree with that. And then share other thoughts. We don't uh you don't need to repeat what they said. We'll keep a list of all of the questions that are asked. And then after the public um comment period's over, then we'll go ahead and we'll address all of those. Um so with that, we're now in public comments. So if anybody or public hearing, so if anybody wants to come forward, please do so.

Hello. Uh my name is Karina Redwick. I'm in Roy. Um I'm going to read this just to make sure that I hit all of my points on a specific topic. Um, so specifically for the area around the Roy station, uh, we think the city council needs to consider the impact of existing home values and the height increases that could be implemented here. Your current taxpayers have high higher home values due to having views and therefore pay more in taxes. Our recent appraisal, so my recent appraisal resulted in our view attributing to 3% of our overall home value. That's tens of thousands of dollars. Excessive building heights will obstruct views and will decrease home values and decrease tax revenue for the city. We recognize that the reasonable and logical answer needs to preserve the home values while also accommodating needed steady growth while also acknowledging that current taxpayers in this area who have made significant financial investments are frustrated with the current construction that's going on that is already uh that we're already deeply concerned about the negative impact on the horizon here. The International Building Code adopted by the state defines height limitations. It is my recommendation that max building height stories, however you want to put it, should remain in place regardless of determination of the story height. This would keep the city aligned with the international building code, provides some flexibility for the builders pursuing the change, and offers reasonable compromise for the residing taxpaying citizens. Average story height across the US and Utah are and more specifically cities surrounding Roy is 10 feet. The proposal of 14 feet is excessive and is not a little bit of height as you just previously mentioned. It was stated that during the planning

meeting that 14t was selected as the max height based on historicals, but where that number came from was unknown. Uh economically feasible or not, this doesn't make sense. before the council votes. I think research needs to be done to understand why 14 feet was previously used and have justification documented for whatever max height is selected. So in clo closing, I emphasize that this topic should have additional research conducted prior to making a decision and urge you to do right by the citizens in this area. Thank you.

Thank you. So, my name is Nancy Inman and I am the group who filed the referendum against the taller buildings and we did fail to get the number of signatures, but we didn't fail to get a lot of comments from the citizens about what they want and what they don't want. And what they don't want is taller buildings in our small city. They if they wanted to live in Salt Lake with the huge highrises, they would have stayed there and not moved back. So, I'm urging you to vote no on increasing the heights of these buildings. So, what you're going to do to the people who live right along that strip is they're going to have people staring down into their bedroom windows and into their backyards and they're not going to have the privacy that they have or had. So, consider that. Consider the people around the neighborhood where these buildings are going to go and what they're going to lose. just like the ones over there on the corner of uh Hinckley. They call that Bolosville. And they are not happy with all those apartments looking down into their backyards. So Roy is Roy is beginning to be a a a dump the projects with all these apartment buildings and

high-rise buildings. And what comes with it? What comes with it? crime and um people who don't have any roots in the community. So think about that before you start building more apartments and the values of our properties go down every time one of them goes up. So thank you.

Thank you. Shelley Pollston. Um, I wanted to tell you that my son has lived in Roy for 25 years. He has a lovely deck in his backyard. enjoyed watching the fireworks um in the park in Roy. Had a beautiful view of the mountains and had enjoyed entertaining and having barbecues and really enjoyed his space. Now when he goes out on his deck, there's an apartment building there and he can see nothing. They tried to fight it. Nobody cared. You don't listen to the people. The people are the ones that you should take your concerns from and you and you're going to ruin the city. You're going to build projects here. If you don't own a property, you don't have a vested interest in this city. You don't care. If you're just a renter, you're just a renter. And I've lived here for a long time. I like Roy. I've lived in lots of places and I've seen the projects throughout the country. They'll turn into slums and it'll be a nightmare. So, if you guys go ahead with what you think is this great thing you're doing with all

these apartments, you're going to ruin Roy and it's it is going to be a trash city in 20 years and nobody will want to live here. So, I think you should listen to the people that live here and quit doing all this minute city business. I know we're the testing ground in Utah. Our governor has made it very clear that he wants all these things running around. I just spent two weeks driving to Salt Lake and I drove through Salt Lake and it is a nightmare down there. Um cops everywhere, 20, 30 cop cars at a time. Every night I came home, the the apartments itched itch. They've ruined that city. It was beautiful. And boy is going to go the same. So if you want to kill this city, keep it up. Thank you.

Thank you. Cindy Winnham living on live on Lily Drive which you put up bar on the screen. I've spoken before. I know where most all of you live. Not all of you. None of you have the projects going up around you. I look out my kitchen window and I look at because they come on when the sun goes down about 16 sets of lights, top and bottom row lights. I no longer can see night. And that's not just me. That's everybody all the way down to the end of West Lake. We've all got the projects overhead of us shining down into our bedroom windows, our office windows, our kitchen windows. Those apartments have lights on from sunset to sunrise. So, it doesn't change the fact they're already built. I understand that. But there's across on the north of 4,000 from those projects from the muffler, another 200 are going in down by uh Taco Bell and coffee place that don't Starbucks. Another 300 which the gentleman said and I this is this is absolutely eating me up are for educated people. They're high income apartments. Those were his words, huh Steve? Educated people.

Which one? The guy who's going to do the expensive apartments down by Starbucks and Taco Bell. They're for educated people to have an underground parking lot. 300. I couldn't say what he said. Oh, I can't. I remember it. It burned in my brain. How dare he presume who can afford or not afford. So my concern was all of those apartments surrounding me turned out to be and and I talked to Matt behind me. It's 290 apartments. 290. How many cars is that? The 200 across 4,000. How many cars is that down by Starbucks? How many cars is that? turns out to be about 17.

Just for clarification, this ordinance relates to the height of stories. I understand that. Not necessarily the density in apartments.

No, but you are destroying our roads. You're destroying our views. You're destroying our quality of life. I I was born here. I'm old. I've watched the West of Roy used to be just simply farmland. And now it goes as far to Hooper of of neighborhoods which you I think live in one. Yes. Just saying if we have a requirement for a referendum to get 4,800 signatures and only 4,000 people turn out to vote and everybody I went all up up and down my street mad. Oh, they're mad. You're not going to hear it. I heard it all. Uh the one man had a very colorful vocabulary on him and I got it all. So as you are getting ready to vote to do more around me, all around me don't care what the height is. It's the population.

And that's three minutes. So if you could wrap up that I'll wrap up. Say no, please.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this? My name is Kevin Homer. I live here in Roy. Um, I have lived in this area for pretty much my entire life. I know what Roy was like 60 years ago. I have a pretty good idea of what it's like today. I I share the concerns about having buildings that block the view. I share the concerns about buildings where there's too much light and there's not enough privacy. I appreciate very much the discussions that have happened on this issue about the building height for many, many, many months. I know Steve and his very large staff have come up with some very good ideas and I appreciate those changes. Roy has been stag in my opinion Roy has stagnated for many many years. If we ever want it to change we have to do something different and making it so that we can have the little bit of remaining space for buildings of any height. That's one of the few things that we can make a ch a change for. I appreciate the words that have been spoken by Mr. Parkinson and his staff. I appreciate the recommendation and I would support a positive recommendation to the city council. Hopefully, we can get group of people there that can understand the things that have been talked about and the changes that could be made. So, I do support those changes. We need to make it Roy better and this

is one way, one of the few remaining ways that we can make it better. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Austin Garcia. I live also live in Roy. Um I just had a question about infrastructure wise. say when these town homes do go in, what are you gonna do with the roads? Are we going to just leave the roads the way they are? It's already hard enough to get around, you know, with the school when the train arms are down for sometimes 20 minutes. Is it going to turn our road going into our culde-sac into a highway by the time they build that back part? Is there any plan to address that at all? I mean, that's one thing to look at as well. I mean, and as far as the height goes, you say, so current is 35 ft, correct?

For a regular house, yes,

regular house, but you want to move to the story. So, you say it's, you know, not that much taller, it's going to go from 35 ft to 49 ft. We have a bunch of units out behind our house right now that are at the 35 ft and we can barely see above them in our upstairs. Pretty tall house. So just west of our yard, you want to allow them to potentially build higher. Unacceptable. We will not be able to see anything out of our backyard anywhere out of our house period. The thought that you guys are actually considering this is incredible. I can't believe it. We've already suffered enough, you know, with the houses going in like might have been, you know, my fault that we didn't look into it more, but we moved to Roy 3 years ago and we understood that was utility land. And then lo and be lo and behold, you know, a week goes by, we go down to the front runner station, there's town homes going to be built. They build right up to our property. They have no respect for our property line. They have no respect for noise odorants. No respect at all. We've had damage to our property. The work goes on all weekend. Loud. Starts 600 6:30 in the morning on a Sunday. playing music, tools going, tractors, whatever. So, we understand like the town homes are going to be a thing. We've already like we're past that. But for you guys to allow the height to go up more, ridiculous. And it should not happen. We have multiple neighbors on our side that wouldn't weren't able to come here

tonight and speak their voice because they're old. they can't make it here, but they have to listen to that all day, all weekend. It's It's just like, what are we doing here? That's the end of your time. So, if you could wrap up, that would be that would be great. Okay. I'm pretty sure you guys won't do anything about it. You're just going to do what you guys want to, but just to let you guys know, everybody's pissed about it. Thank you. Rethink it. Would anybody else like to speak to the ordinance?

Okay, we'll now close our our motion to close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. I'll second. Motion a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay, the public hearing is now closed. Um, turn it back to Steve for a second. Um, again, just you kind of commented on it and I wanted to reiterate everything can already be built. Town homes, the commercial buildings, it it's not this is not a matter of reszoning a property like we did almost five five years ago. Um, this is now all those projects can occur by right um because that's what zoning allows. So this was to make the chapter consistent with itself. As I mentioned before and probably didn't do it a good time this time is the mixeduse code measures buildings by stories, not by height. Um when the council approved it, they changed everything from stories to just heights. So there was inconsistencies of how to measure the building. Um, when the town homes started getting built over in in the Front Runner station, that became a a problem for me is how do I measure this knowing it's supposed to be by stories and the roof line is not included in the height, but when it says 35 ft. So, we did what the code said and if there's a con conflict or contradiction, the developer has whichever one they would like. Um, so this is to clean that language up so it is consistent that what we would like or want is consistent. So the the developer doesn't have the ability to change what they want. Um, I'm not going to be

favored on this comment. Um, our views aren't guaranteed beyond our own property line. So I know I know they're great. the mountains are, you know, great thing to to to be able to see um in the morning or at night, but we're not guaranteed that because the next property has the right to build and has the right to build whatever is allowed by code. um those that already seen the the town homes that are built I mean by right they could build it at 35 ft or whatever that happened to be at the time before the station zones came into play it was light manufacturing and those buildings could be 60 feet tall so in in in essence everything got shrunk with the the zoning of of the station south central and north well not central because it's six stories or 60 Um, we heard comments about crime. There's no statistic saying that crime increases just because of apartments and town homes. The percentage still stays the same, but you have a more larger group of people that live closer to each other. So, it's not that there's more, it's just you got more people. Therefore, you kind of see the thought of there's more crime. the the percentages don't change. Um so the increases only is because the density is a little higher and as mentioned the density is not changing tonight nor has it been discussed to be changed. This is just to make the buildings consistent in measurement with the the code. Um so apartments are allowed, town homes are allowed. um projects and slums. I mean, I I again,

I'm not going to be liked on this comment, but there are single family homes and single family residents that are worse than many town homes and apartment complexes. Um it comes down to pride. The town homes that are being built over by the station are rented. So, the community is run by an organization that wants to keep it beautiful and and thriving. So, they're going to keep it going. Um, it's when you have separate owners in a town home project that some things kind of get missed, but hopefully with HOAs and stuff, those continue on. So, there's more likely that those town home projects are going to have be consistent in landscaping versus a single family home. Um, as mentioned, apartments, uh, town homes, commercial development can already occur. So, killing the city, if that's what is being done, it was done five years ago. Um, but in essence, we don't know the future. We don't know if this mixeduse code will help bring in the the development that we want, the commercial projects that we'd like so that there is restaurants and there is other things that will help property tax and sales tax for the city. In 20 years, we can we'll we'll know more. But I know 20 years ago when the movie theater was torn down, did we really increase the revenue by tearing that that down? Some say yes, some say no, but we're we've got what we've got when we tore it down. So, we had to to do something like Mr. Homer said, we're we're kind of stagnant as it is with no development coming. We've had more interest

in the last few years with the new mixeduse code than we had in the eight years before that when I working here. So it it it does take time for developers to see what they can do but Roy in my opinion will become better. Now will it be perfect? Who knows? Will it be what everybody wants? Who knows? But if we can at least get the taxes where the city can rely on it without having to raise property taxes, I think that's a win-win. Because a project worth $10 million brings in a lot more than 20 homes that don't equal that. Um destroying roads, views, and quality of life. Again, what's being built is already allowed. This is just changing how we measure the buildings. I think I got everything. Those are the notes that I had. And there is an interesting study out there that was done by Weber State a few years ago um specifically regionally with highdensity housing that addresses some of the crime rates and those kinds of things. Um and and in that study it does kind of indicate what Steve said that there isn't necessarily an increase but there is more people which so percentage-wise it stays the same but there is more events just because there are more people. But that's something you can look up and and see. And that one's interesting because it is more localized rather than some of the national studies because what goes on in Chicago is very different than what goes on in in Roy. Um any further discussion from the commission

and I'd like to just point out that um as Steve mentioned our what we can see or what we can view is not guaranteed. Um, I remember a neighbor that was unhappy about the neighbor to the east that built a big accessory building in the back. And he was unhappy about that accessory building because it blocked his view. Well, the accessory building is allowed, right? And it's not a sixstory. It's not a 10 story. It's a it's probably 35 ft or whatever the height was. He built it to the height that he could. Um, but the view is not guaranteed. It's just not. You look at the ones that that live close to where they built the gymnasium at the high school. Okay, their view is blocked. But it's it's just progression and it's and and and to believe that you're guaranteed a view is just not it's not real. Um change is necessary. If we're not moving forward, we're moving backwards or being left behind. And and Roy, I've been here over 50 years. I've seen it from what it was. Okay, I remember going across the tracks and hunting feeasant and now you the only thing you can do is play dodgeball with cars. I get that. But it's the progression that just happens. The state's growing. Um but if we're not being progressive, then we are going to get left behind. That the taxes, the tax pinch you felt this year didn't come from Roy. It came from the county. it came from all the other uh the the school district and and the county fees. Those all increased. And so as we look at, you know, what's going to change with not doing anything other than changing what we determine as heights is is not really affecting all those things. They're just not. Um, so I I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the concerns, but as it

relates to the city and the changes they want to make, um, some of those things, if you honestly think about it, they're just not they're not as um your guaranteed view is just it's just not guaranteed. Um, there's not a guarantee there's going to be increment crime. Uh, I'll tell you blue in the face that if you're worried about traffic through Roy, you better start looking west because as they continue to grow west, they're going to come through Roy. And so if you want to do something, go stand and then, you know, and argue with Hooper and unincorporated Weber County about building out that way because that's coming through Roy and that's increasing our traffic as well. Um, so I I I hear what you're saying. I just don't think it's as um uh relevant as what you believe it is. The we have to be progressive. We have to offer people opportunities to live in uh a unit that they prefer. Not everybody wants to live in a single family dwelling. Some people prefer to live in a town home or a condominium or an apartment. I I say this all the time. When I first got married, I did not have the funds to buy me a home. Apartments is where I had to live. And to come in and say, "We're going to reduce that. We're going to make it so that we just keep it a bedroom community with single family homes." Just isn't logical because that means you're restricting who can be here, who can live here, whether it's a studio or an apartment or a townhouse or luxury apartments. It it just means diversity is coming to our our city. And that that means some good things for the city. It means we're not being left behind. And so for the sake of what we're talking about tonight as far as just the heights, it it makes sense. It aligns us with the standard. But all the other things, we've heard it before and we understand,

but I just don't think there's relevant as what um has been discussed because some of those things we can just approve it. It just doesn't happen. So, I appreciate the the feedback, but I I just I don't necessarily agree with it. I wonder if you'd just let me entertain a scenario if you don't mind. So, right now, as it stands, let's say we're we're talking about a an area where it's a 35 foot building height limit, right? So, assuming a developer comes in and wants to build something in this zone with what we're proposing, he wants to build something commercial on the bottom floor. He can go up to what 17 feet without if he goes to 18 it counts for two right

if it's taller than 18. So 18 feet one. So if he goes for if he goes with an 18 foot main floor and then he it goes to a 10 which is not reasonable. But let's say he wants a 9 foot ceiling in his apartments that's another 20t right so you're at 38 feet. So that's additional three feet. What's more logical or reasonable that you're going to see is a 14 foot first story and then two 9 foot additional stories. So if you do the math and I'm doing it on my calculator, but I could really do this in my head, you have 32 feet, which is actually smaller than the 35 ft that he's allowed. That's probably 90% of the scenario that you're going to see right

in this scenario where you have previously a 35 foot building height where now we're going to three and a half stories. That half story is going to count in the ceiling in the pitch of the roof or in a in a half or in a half basement which isn't really ultimately going to affect the height of the building at all. So, you're probably going to see buildings coming in that are going to be less than the 35 ft 90% of the time. If you're doing a standard ceiling that you're going to see in most rental units, you're probably going to see a 9 foot story rather than a 10 and more than likely a 14oot main story. Just like I said, to throw some scenarios out there that you're probably going to most likely see. Any other comments from the commission?

I'm old. Um, my grandmother's house was down on Lincoln Avenue and it had 11t ceilings in it. My current house only has 8ft ceilings. The 10 and 11t ceiling is starting to come back in vogue. um it's just a style thing. So counting stories at a given height is a much easier to uh manage scenario than just setting a 35 ft height total on the building because uh things change over time. Um, as far as the view, when I moved into my house 40 years ago, I had a beautiful view of the lake and then the pine tree across the street grew and it grew and it grew and uh, over time I couldn't see the lake anymore. If it wasn't for the beetle infestation into that that particular pine tree, it would still be standing there and still be growing. But it died and my neighbor across the street hired a tree removal service and took it out and uh said, "Sorry, you couldn't see the lake for a long time. Now you can." So things change. It's not just buildings. There's trees all over the place. Um, the fireworks that were in West West Roy, they moved them from West Park, which was just down the street from me. I can't see them from my house because of the trees. If the trees weren't there, it'd be perfect viewing

area. So, we're not talking about trees, we're talking about buildings. But just like the trees, things change. I do just want to make one little little comment, not necessarily about building Heights, but about our rental community here in Roy. Um, because yes, there's a concept of pride in in ownership, but especially just with where we're at with housing costs and such. Roy has a community of renters who do give to our community, who are invested, and who are very involved. They they're volunteering. I think they're giving however they can and I just wanted to make sure that that um that that was addressed tonight that we do value our entire community including our renters. Thank you.

And I know for me just speaking I'll speak for the planning commission as a whole for a minute. All of us one of the requirements to be on the planning commission is that we live in Roy. We are Royy's citizens. I've raised my family here. We've lived here for 23 years. I care and I care a lot and I also believe in this community that we have a bright future. And one of the reasons I got involved with the planning commission is because I was tired of the same old thing. You used to drive down 1900 and see the same types of businesses and I'm not going to disparage those because they do have a place in our community. But also there was never any growth or progress. And the only way that we can do that I mean there are several different ways you can approach growth. I don't know if what we're doing is the right thing. I can't say that what we've done over the last seven years I've been on the planning commission has been perfectly right. I won't know that until 20 30 years in the future. But I do know that we've done something different and we have tried to approach it differently. Um you can give tax incentives, you can do all sorts of things. None of those really seem viable for Roy. So creating a different vision, a different set of standards, planning the mixed use. It's it's an idea and a concept, but doing the same thing that we've always done would only deliver the same same results. And and in terms of the building height, the economics just don't bear out to have this substantially impact the heights of the buildings. Yes. You know, it may be four feet taller. Maybe there's one building that ends up 39 ft versus 35 ft. Does that impact somebody's view to a degree? Yes. I fullon admit that. I have a neighbor who built a shed in their backyard that's 35 feet tall. Blocked my beautiful view of the mountains. Blocked my view of the fireworks when they at Roy West Park, but he had a right to do that on his property. And so I just, you know, when we look at things, I think we have to do things that incentivize the type of growth that we want in Roy. And

commercial growth especially, I think is impacted by this type of um hide ordinance. And if we don't have commercial development in Roy, then our taxes will continue to go up. Um, my tax for the city this year was about $350 for the city. That's a pretty dang good deal. When you break it out, take away all the school taxes, everything else, the county taxes, $350 for what we get out of Roy is a pretty dang good deal. And if we can lower that by getting more businesses in and have better services, I think that's a positive. And this is a way that we're trying to to do that. And I have heard no other solutions out there that try to incentivize people to come in different than what we're trying to do that I think will have as big of an impact. So that's kind of where I'm I'm coming from. But I care deeply and I do believe we have a bright future, not a trash future and and the doom and gloom that this city is going to hell in a hand basket. That's just not the case. And I think we can all make a difference to keep our community moving in that positive direction.

And I just want to make one more statement that when we're looking at some of these options for these housings, these row buildings, the locations and everything, there are certain things that are dictated by the state. And so we're looking to um be able to stay in compliance with that and do it in a way that promotes the future that we have in our plan for Roy as far as our um our long-term plan here with the city. But we are dictated by the state on some of this as well.

So Steve, I have a question and I don't know why I just thought of this, but when we bring in apartments and things like that, we are still getting property tax from those buildings. So, if we have a building that's huge and not, and I say huge because it's got a lot of apartments, that's going to bring in more property tax than if we were to build like 10 houses. Correct. So, the multif family housing does help keep the rest of us that live here our taxes down more because it's bringing in more income. Am I understanding this correctly? I don't know why I never thought of that. And I also wanted to say too, I taught at Roy Jr. for 12 years. Um, I taught at Sandridge for a year and I knew a lot of people like Anna said that were rentals and the people that come into our city, I feel like they need to have a chance to live here. I went to Lake View, Roy Junior, Roy High. My kids have gone to Midland. I mean, I've lived here my whole life. I live on 4,800. When I live moved into 48, it was all farmland. I mean, Wiggers wasn't even there. And so, I just feel like I have the busy road. I don't have anyone in front of me, but boy do I have traffic. And I just choose to continue to live there. And I think Royy's great. This is the best place to live because we have the best people. That's all.

You know, you don't all have Well, I just wondered about the property tax. I just never thought of that before. I mean to to clarify if you say I've got a 30 unit apartment building and the property is 100 ft wide

you look at the store the storm water the sewer lines the water lines that are in front of that and to replace that water line you're dividing it by 100 units. Now take 10 single family homes that are eight 85 feet wide property. Just to get 10 I'm 850 feet. Um we did a a project on Hal Vern just north of 4,000. It was just over half a mile and it was $750,000 to replace the water sewer lines. Just add sidewalks in the street. I mean, the closer you can get people together, those utilities actually begin to cost less. Still the same amount, but if you have more people, it's cost less per person.

Okay, I think we should call the question. Is there a motion? There is. Um, chair, I make a motion to forward a positive recommendation to city council regarding the proposed amendments for title 10 zoning ordinance amending chapter 13 mixed use changing building heights from overall height of uh to a number of stories allowed for building types within the BPS CSNs and UC zones. Save that one. I did when we opened. All I have to say is second. We have a motion in a second. All in Oh, this will be a roll call vote. Sorry. Yeah. Don't Don't step ahead. Nope.

Sorry, forgot to um Commissioner Reid. Hi, Commissioner Tanner. Hi, Commissioner Bills. Hi, Commissioner Callie. Hi, Commissioner Fel. Hi, Commissioner Gaff Graph. I Commissioner Young I Okay, sworn in. Now they can swear at me. Yeah, you'll get a little bit.

I don't know when this will be on if it'll be the first meeting in April or the second meeting in April for the council. Okay, we will move on to agenda item number five, which is also a public hearing. And this is to consider amendments to title 10 zoning ordinance amending chapter 11 supplementary development standards and chapter 17 table of uses allowing chickens on a single family property within the R2, R3, R4, and R5 zones. That is a mouthful. It is again. Yes.

Um, so this is chickens, Steve. Um, so as we've discussed this a couple times before, um, over the years with the chicken ordinance that has been adopted since 2016, it has morphed a bit. I think the biggest one was, I want to say two years ago when we had two individuals come and one wanted chickens on smaller properties than 8,000 and one wanted more chickens on properties bigger than um, 15 or whatever it was. Excuse me. Um, so we've had several discussions on this, but one aspect that always stayed mute was if I live in a or on a single family home property in a multifamily zone. Question comes is why can't I have chickens, too? I'm still single family. I'm just in a different zone. Um, so that's where this this project or topic really came up. So, the thought is let's change that to allow for those that own single family home properties in the multifamily zones to to have chickens. Uh we discussed if we want to lower it less than 6,000 and have a number of chickens and uh during the last uh work session we decided not to just leave it as as it is. um but to include the R2, R3, R4 and R5 zones for all residential single family properties in those multifamily zones. All aspects of the code remain the same. So the the coupe size, the run, where it's located, and all the all the requirements that you need remain the same. It's just allowing those in the multifamily zones to have chickens. So, this one's pretty straightforward, but

staff would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the council. Any questions? So, in summary, this takes what we did last year, the work that we put into extending the right to bear chickens to a lot more residents within within Roy. Yes. And it just basically extends the same chicken rights to those in a multifamily zone if that is a residential property. Single family. Single family. Yep. And rabbits. And rabbits. Yeah. Why do we leave rabbits out of this? Most people just want are wanting chickens, but when I bring up rabbits, they kind of get kitty as well. So, chickens and rabbits.

Okay. Any questions for Steve? If not, a motion to go into public hearings in order. I move that we go into public hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Motion a second. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? We are now in public hearing. So, same rules as before. Um, just please state your name and your city. We'll give you up to three minutes. And, uh, please keep it related to the ordinance we're talking about, which is chickens and rabbits in multifamily zones. Would anybody from the public like to come up and speak to this? It's me again, Shelley Pollston. Not going to pick on you badly this time. Um, this topic came up about the chickens. Um, I just wanted to share something with you so you could kind of think about it. Um, I have a sister in California who has been studying the constitution for five years and now they are studying all 50 state constitutions. And I was speaking her to her the other day and told her about this chicken thing that's going on in Roy, which I'm not having anything. Somebody else can. And I we the thing that we came up with is you are guaranteed by your creator, not the government. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, your property. These things are a guarantee to the people. No one has the power to say what you can and cannot do. And so as we were discussing this um she just said basically it's your property. So, you need to be really careful

when you start mandating what people can and can't do on their property because I think you may find that it's unconstitutional, that you can't tell them they can have one chicken or two. And we also discussed and I said, "Well, what if somebody has a little yard and they have 50 chickens and they're driving their neighbors nuts?" and she said, "This country is based on Christian values and Christianity, so you should, you know, be kind to your neighbor and think about your neighbors and and don't do things that would bother other people. But at the end of the day, what you do on your own property is not something that can be ordinanced, which isn't even a law. And it it's the person's right, not something that you can allow them to do. Just think about it. I'm just starting to learn. In fact, you know, today I just printed a copy of the Utah State Constitution and I started to read it and it's really interesting what's in there. And I've only read a couple pages, but um just think about it. When you start mandating what people can and can't do, you're you may be getting into a really funny area because they've already been sending letters out about those kinds of things in this group that they're in. Um they send letters to the Supreme Court, to the president, everybody. and they've really been digging into what the people your rights are. So, just kind of bear that in mind.

It's an interesting thing. I just watched you all take your oath, so I know you're on board. Your time's up, but thank you. Okay, Glend Glendmore. I live in Roy and I just I'm in favor of the right to bear chickens. So, go for it. I think this is a really good thing to recommend to the city council to approve. Thanks. Thank you. Couple good quotes lately.

What? Couple of good quotes.

Austin Garcia again. Just uh want to let you know we have six chickens and we support the you guys letting us have a couple more now. So, it's a good thing and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh my name is Kevin Homer. I live here in Roy. I I really do appreciate the comments of the uh the lady that let off our comments here. I'm a little bit embarrassed because I'm the constitutional guy and I didn't even not even tie this to our constitutional rights and really should have. 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and listed our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 1772, Samuel Adams also in explaining to the king about the rights of the colonists also listed our rights to life, liberty, and property. We certainly have that. So, I stand corrected. It's a wonderful constitutional right. As far as this ordinance, which has to do with chickens and hopefully has to do with bunnies as well, I think there's been a lot of good discussion, a lot of good discussion, way too much discussion. Let's let's try to put an end to the discussion and and follow the recommendation of staff to approve this. Now, I do have one concern. It was alluded to last time uh in the last work session about this. I have a concern that properties less than 6,000 square feet are kind of excluded from all of this. If they want to have chickens, they should be able to have chickens. if they follow the if you took a small lot and came in on the on the side and the front and back uh assessments for the property and if they still have room to put a

normalsiz chicken coupe or a bunny rabbit coupe or whatever you want, I think that that should be fixed in the future. But as far as the current uh resolution, again, I would follow the recommendation of staff that this should be a positive recommendation to city council. Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this motion to go out of public hearing? I second. Have a motion to second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Any further discussion from the commission or emotions in order?

Um, one thing I mean

Oh, yeah. Sorry, Steve. Yes, we have the the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And on the constitutional portion of it, uh the 1926 Supreme Court ruling of um Umber versus Uklid, it did state that zoning is a constitutional aspect. So, we you can limit what people do on properties if it goes by the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Um, a lot of communities as they begin to become urban rather than rural do start taking away animals because you're no longer a farming community. So Roy was no different. So 1936 when we had incorporated I think you could have animals. In 1953 when the first zoning code they started restricting what animals you could have in which zone and then continued on down. So in 2016 the city adopted where you could start having chickens again again because there was a push for that for everyone to to be able to grow what they they want and eat stuff. So, just know it's not unconstitutional as long as you can state it's for the health, welfare, and safety of of individuals. Noise is a is always a concern. The the topic of dogs always comes up as well at the same time. You know, if a dog's yapping, you call the police and animal controls comes down and issues a citation and off you go. So there's certain noises we don't want even though certain things we do like. So just that aspect, but um Kevin did bring up an aspect on should smaller lots and 6000 be able to have chickens. I know it was a discussion point that we

had a couple times ago and it was hard to determine how small is too small, how many is, you know, should that be. So, I don't know if you want to add to that conversation or go down to 4,000. And I think we discussed Yeah,

when we look at the setbacks on coups, the distance away from property lines um as it relates to neighboring housing less than 6,000 square feet just put it too close. It just didn't make any sense to to go less than that. So, um, again, constitutional rights versus what's should be the health and welfare of our neighbors and consideration of our neighbors. I I I joked about this in our work session that said my I live on a quarter acre and my wife loves horses and I'm pretty sure my neighbor wouldn't like a horse in my backyard because it it's just not going to be conducive to the continuity of community. it's not going to show respect to the people that live around me. So when we look at these types of things and the impact it has on the continuity of community, that's what we should be preserving is the is that the safety, welfare, and continuity of our community. So um I don't think we should go less than 6,000 and that I think it's fair. I I believe it's a it's a fair uh compromise to this. And can we please cook this chicken and be done with it?

And I think there was also discussion during our last um planning commission work session that if somebody does have a smaller property that matched all of the setbacks um and all of those requirements that they were they would be able to to come and ask for an exception in that situation. And if I'm wrong and I misunderstood that, please correct me. But uh that was my understanding. Yeah, they they can always apply to to mend the code. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion or motions in order? Go for it.

Motion that we forward a positive recommendation to city council regarding the proposed amendments to title 10 zoning ordinance amending chapter 11 supplementary development standards and chapter 17 table of uses allowing chickens on single family properties within the R2, R3, R4, and R5 zones. Second. Motion and second. This will be a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Bills, I Commissioner Kelly, I, Mr. Felt, I, Mr. Graph, I, Commissioner Young, I, Commissioner Reid, I, Commissioner Tanner, I.

That passes unanimously. Um, we will move on to administrative items. Now, uh, number six, a request for site plan approval for Custom Solutions located approximately 6051 South, 1900 West. And I assume you're the applicant. So, I'll have you come on up, state your name and your city, and tell us about your site plan. All right. Uh, my name is Brian Wood, and I'm actually from Cisville, and I own a business in Centerville right now, and we are buying a building at this location. And our we just need to go over a site plan review with you. Um, what all do you what all do you want to know? How do how do you want me to go about it? I I've got the pictures here if you just want to describe it or

so. And I have so I have my site plan here and I have landscape and irrigation plan. Do you want me to hand that and go over that at all with you? Email them to me.

Okay. So, uh the main deal with this property um it's it was used as a uh general use for a pest control business. Right now, we're going to come in and change the use to Craftsman Industrial, and I believe it's the downtown gateway zone, which it's a permitted use there. Um, there's a few issues with the land right now in this, you can see on the bottom left that gray box. Right now, the storm water is going into the sewer. So, we're going to change that. And this is in our drawing of this uh retention tank. It'll be under under the ground. And then as well along with that, another change we're making is the road on 1900, we have two entrances. And on this, it doesn't show it because this is what we're going to change it to, but there was an entrance on the north end that we need to close. So, I think those are the biggest changes. Um, and then the you can see the two islands, parking islands. We're going to add those to it and add six stalls so that we can be compliant there. Um, the ADA parking, we couldn't put it anywhere else because of the slope. So, we have the parking up in front of the building. Um,

yeah, that's about it, I think. Okay. So, thank you. Any questions? What kind of work are you going to be doing?

So, we do um several different things. We do custom welding. We we fabricate small parts. We do some stuff for Hill Air Force Base. We make them tools and things. Uh we also do custom trucks. So, we take we'll take a truck and cut it in half and add another row to it. So, we'll make them a six door truck. So, part of our business is called Stretch My Truck. Um, so we do that and we also do um another truck which is called a mega cab. We cut it in the back and we make it we add a long bed to it. So it's a long bed truck. So mostly the fabrication side um fun things like that welding and we're going to have some laser cutting in there. So it's pretty fun.

Right. So are you going to have lifts in the building? So we'll have one one lift in there. Yeah. Okay. And the floor will support the lift. Yes. Yeah. I had friend put in a lift and the floor wouldn't support it. Yeah. It was a disaster. Yeah. I'm sure. Yep. We're going to So the um about half the of the whole building, the whole building's 8,500 square f feet, but the west half is storage units right now. And we're just going to keep those as storage units and rent them out. So we're not really looking to change The way the property is right now would suit us, but we're going to make these changes just to accommodate what the city wants.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, Steve. We'll turn it over to Steve for staff and we may have some other questions at the end, but for now, thank you. Take a seat. Yep. Go ahead and take a seat.

Okay. As mentioned, this is a site plan review approval uh for the they're at 6051 South 1900 West. Some of you may remember a year a little bit ago, there was another company came in uh was pest control sprays. They were going to I mean the site plan is almost identical. This one only has five stalls on the south side when they had I want to say seven but landscape islands on either side. um they are required to have an ADA. The only place to put it was in front even though our our code says no parking in in front of buildings. Um but this is one of those building code requirements. So we had to put it somewhere. Um the building has non-conforming rights as it is its location. I mean if this was a brand new build, it'd be up close to the street and then we could get things done. So trying to bring the property up to today's standards as much as possible with the limitations that that exist. Um UD do was the one that required the closing of the north entrance. They have control of of their roads and um they required that. And then um this the storm water stuff was just is something that both public works and engineering found not too long ago is the fun part that the storm water was going into the sewer line and shouldn't been. So they have to make those modifications. But from a planning standpoint, there's really nothing in the the DRC comments that can't be done in order to get this in compliance. Um the storm water is probably the biggest price tag and biggest issue that's going to be there. Um the other things, yes, they will cost money, but um as you mentioned, we're just getting things to close as possible. I think this would be a great use. Again, it's an allowed use under in

the zone. Um so staff would just recommend approval of the site plan. Um I know one comment asked earlier about the building itself. They're not making any modifications to the building. inside the building's not under our control. That's a building code area. So, they'll do that. But I think the only thing was was the lift in one of the bays that's there. Other than that, building pretty much stays the same. I did wonder. What's the square footage? No, wrong zone.

I I do have one question. Um because you are doing custom work for other people, correct? Are is there an outdoor storage? Uh there there'll be a a wall or a fence in order to screen any vehicles that are coming in and out. Okay. So, yeah, there will be some, but he's not like a mechanic where people are just going to show up and drop off a vehicle. It's more appointment based. So, it's going to be onesie twzies here. He might have one in bay with one either being finished or one coming in staged or but we will it does require screening of of those things. So,

okay, seems pretty straightforward to me. Motions in motion's in order. Make a motion to approve uh custom solutions located or the site plan approval. Make a motion to approve the site plan for custom solutions located at approximately 6051 South 1900 West the conditions and the comments from with the conditions and and the comments from the DRC with the conditions and with the conditions from Yeah. All that. Sorry. I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Passes unanimously. Thank you. And I don't know that I ever have the need for a six door truck, but if I do, now we know where to go. But a picture of it. Yeah, we should you should have some pictures in there in your I I want to see a geometro that's six door. A six door geometro. Yeah. Still using the three cylinder. Probably just take three Pepsi cans and stack them up together. But um anyway, thank you. Appreciate you coming here and good luck to you. Um, we'll move on to item number seven, which is commissioner's minute. Anybody have anything they'd like to bring up? Are we having a work session this month?

Um, I'm still researching on the conversion of open space and multifamily. So, if I get enough information, then yes. I don't have any other topics really to to bring up at this time. Thank you. So, if the planning commission would like to just cancel it, I can. And otherwise, I'll see what I come up with. So, no horses on my corner acre. Um, well, you can certainly apply and and try. Just kidding. I don't want chickens. Have a rabbit. No. Okay, we'll move on to item number eight, which is the staff update.

Okay, a couple things. Um, Agora Heights, which is next to KFC. We have their pre-construction meeting this Thursday. So, probably next week you'll start seeing Earth being moved for that uh sixstory building to be begin construction. Um, I know Ryan knows this, but the rest you may not. The state legislation closed last Friday. Hallelujah. But with that did come some planning issues that we will have to discuss. One of them that to me is big is the state is requiring that all cities allow for detached ADUs on properties that are 11,000 square feet and larger. So again, the state's mandating

interesting more people become duplexes versus single family homes. The question I'm still looking at is can I have an A I AU an internal accessory dwelling unit and a detached at the same time and essentially taking a single family home and making it a triplex. So that's being mandated. So we will begin discussions once I understand all the nuances of that that bill. Um there are a few others that we'll we'll go through. Some of them are are great like one is on campaign signs.

So you can't campaign signs now can be within park strips. Yes, everybody wants to use my yard. But in there they did say that we could we could start looking at the content of the sign even though the Supreme Court says we can't. So the state and the const US constitution are at odds with each other right now, but we'll see how that goes. We will.

So there's there's a few things that come in. There was I'd probably say dozen and a half bills that dealt with land use and about four or five of them I'm I'm looking at. So that will really affect us as a city. So, the comments about increased traffic. We can thank our legislative body for allowing us to add more ADUs in our already developed subdivisions that create more traffic in our subdivisions. Well, your sewer lines, your water demand, all that stuff. Yeah. Yep. So, got to love it.

So, that look look forward to that. It probably won't be in this month's work session. uh we got training end of this month, beginning of next month and to understand exactly what we have to do. So, okay, thank you. With that, we will move on to item number nine. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Have a motion, a second. All in favor? I please. Any opposed? Okay, we are now adjourned. Thank you. Can't wait to take out my contacts.