Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're in business, the boss has arrived. Hi Ryan.

You see, it sounds like you're almost numb, like you've been to the dentist. Ooh. Yeah, 15 in one shot. Whew.

Okay.

Right.

Yeah, I bet.

How long ago did you have them out?

Two weeks ago.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

Oh, that's a, I was trying to do a chainsaw.

I just want you to start the meeting with gentlemen and start your engines.

I think Steve said six of us were supposed to be here.

Spaghetti, like homemade, it's been kind of fun.

Like the sauce and everything?

No, like the noodles and everything, yeah.

And do you shake them so that you can lay them and dry them? Wooden dowel?

I don't really let them, like I let them dry for just like five, ten minutes. Really? And then cook them fresh.

How do you do it, like with this egg and the well?

Yep, I just make a well and mix it up. Really? And then I just have a little hand crank.

No, I just, you don't want to do that.

Yeah, I cook it fresh, so I don't really let it dry. That's awesome.

Party at Ryan's.

Pretty easy to make. And once you've had it, I mean, the flavor is a little bit like it's, I don't know, the texture is so much better. Do you cook?

Really? Yeah.

He stuck on a lot of ice, because my dad used to do dialysis, and he'd get really dry, but he couldn't drink a lot, so he'd just suck on the ice, and then it kept him so he wasn't thirsty. I don't work with them anymore.

She handled it like a champ.

So she took a picture with

Bye.

let's do 10. that works hi kevin good how are you

i just want to tell you i am so impressed with you like knowing all the rules and all this stuff like i just think you're the best it definitely you were like getting them i just i'm so proud of you you're like the best

I haven't. I can text him real quick.

i thought that

Sorry.

Taking pictures and texts. . . .

I'm hot. Are we good, Steve? I don't want to touch your mic again. Mine's on.

Okay, we'll call to order our Planning Commission meeting for June 9th, 2026 here in Royce City. And we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bills. 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'll begin with item number one, which is a declaration of conflicts. Do any of the commissioners have any conflicts that they need to declare tonight? Okay, no conflicts. We will move on to agenda item number two, which is approval of the April 14th, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Any discussion or a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the April 14th minutes.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Item number three is approval of the April 28th, 2026 work session minutes.

Motion to approve the April 28th work session minutes.

I'll second.

Motion to approve and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number four, approval of the May 12th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Motion to approve May 12th, 2022 regular meeting minutes.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye, I'll say that louder. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We will move on to agenda item number five, which is a public hearing to consider the following request for property located approximately 3025 West, 4525 South, and it's to amend the general plan future land use map from single family residential to multifamily residential, to amend the zoning map from R18, single family residential, to R3, multifamily residential, and a development agreement with Gooding LLC allowing 18 single family dwellings on a private road. So we'll begin as the applicant here. Would you come forward, and if you'll give us your name and the city where you live, and then tell us about what you want to do.

Good, thank you. I appreciate your time, commissioners. My name's Robert Fuller. I live in Eden, Utah. And we've had this property for the last 20-something years. And there is a configuration of two different subdivision plans. If you're familiar with the piece of property, it's a hayfield down there right now. So there's two configurations. One has a road coming into it from 4600 South, and there was a problem under the R18 zone. There was 150 foot requirement where you have to offset roads if they're not lined up, which was an impossibility based on the roads on the other side of the of the street from it. And then coming from 3100, there's a version where the road comes in from 3100. So The road configuration didn't work under the plat that's already been reviewed, so the reason we ask for the multifamily is because that is one suggestion that was made to accommodate the road configuration. However, it's not a multifamily project. Those are still single-family lots and there's a There will be a a development or a development agreement that I've discussed with Mr. Wilson based on any input the commission or the council would want to limit the development. So if there's a panic to see the multifamily, it's not they're not like hooked together multifamily. They're all single family homes and it's the same plat that's been circulated several times with just a different road configuration. And it's a private road under this zoning. We can make a private road with an HOA on it, which are the differences. If you look at the area per lot, it's still either really close or exceeds the R18 zoning. So it's more than the 8,000 feet. All of the lots around it, which I believe most of them are R18, if not all, it would still be consistent with those particular lots. So that's it in a nutshell.

Any questions from any of the commissioners? I do have a couple, but I'd love to. So with this, going from R18 to R3, is the purpose of that for the private road and private road only? Are there any other reasons why that would need to be rezoned?

No, I think it's the same number of lots. I think in R3 you could have a narrower, I think you can have a narrower frontage on them, but the configuration that's there is kind of what fits. One reason to have an HOA there, either we'd make a lot bigger lots, it would take in some of the land under the power lines, or there could be, if we have an HOA, there can be a community chunk of land there that's more of a, for a community, for either whatever the HOA chooses to put there, a garden area or, I'm pretty sure nobody wants to farm it, so it would probably just be a lawn area or a garden area, or it would just be hooked onto the lots that are sliced across there with the frontage from the proposed road. That's it.

Any other questions?

Okay, we may have some more questions once we go through. Yeah, for a good neighbor I was talking to there who's panicking, like, envisioning the big three-story, whatever, hooked together, dense condos, it's... That's not the plan. And there will be an agreement to make sure that that's not the plan. If it outlives me, it won't be the plan. And there would be a recorded agreement there for a construction agreement that would fit whatever the city wanted to restrict or impose would be on there. And we'd be receptive. There was a time I think the city was pretty close or at least considered putting a cemetery there with that France in peace. and different options have been kicked around, but if you have a better idea for it, that would be good. It's not a good location for a hayfield, but other than that, that's probably, that configuration came from our engineer who said that would be the logical way to subdivide it. So either of the two options that are out there would be fine with us.

John Potter, And I drove past her yeah I was like to go out and visit the the areas to see, and I mean it is, it is an interesting piece with the power lines and and things like that. John Potter, Originally, if it stays with the R one eight. John Potter, Just doing the math on that you could have 30 and a half units basically 30 units and what you're proposing here with the development agreement is to do the rezone with a development agreement that would make the road a private road. and then lower the overall density to 18. Yes, that was planned. Yeah, and I looked at each of the parcels in the plot map, and every one of them was over the 8,000 square feet. There's one that was like 15. I mean, they're all over the place, but I think all of them were 8,000 or larger. Yeah, I don't think there are any smaller than those lots around it. That'd be great. Okay, that's all the questions I have now. We may bring you up for some more questions later. No, that's fine. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

All right, Steve.

So as mentioned, this is a request to amend the general plan and to multifamily and to amend the zoning map to R3. On the screen is you have the aerial of where this is located. It's just that alpha field that's existing there off of 4600 south and 3100 west. Um, just kind of created a map showing where those power line quarters are. Uh, the blue line is Hooper water line. So it kind of goes through this parcel as well. So right off the bat, you have a, a difficult configuration to get anything in there. Um, so just kind of showing a future land use map to change and the zoning map to change. And I wanted to kind of answer some questions that I've heard before maybe they are talked about. So here's kind of the configuration of the parcel. You see a road coming off of 3100 West, kind of dog legs north, and then goes south into a cul-de-sac. Looks simple enough until you put in the power line corridor. Now, Rocky Mountain doesn't want any homes within there or under there. So you're limited on what you can build in that. They will allow a 10-foot shed, but not a house. Then you put in the Hooper water line. So again, you're just kind of decreasing, again, the amount of land that is available. As you mentioned, the R18 zone, if there was nothing there, they could do 30 lots, probably pretty easy, and be done with it. But because of the configuration of both the power lines and the water line, it becomes more and more difficult. So I went a little bit further, and here are the, the purple represents land that could be built upon. As mentioned, the smallest one is 8272, so 8,272. and the smallest buildable area is 1929. So you could still have a 1500 square foot main level and a two-story building. So they're not gonna be tiny in any sorts. They can still be pretty good size. The largest buildable area is 6256. I don't think you're gonna get a home that's that big. And the largest parcel is 17,573. Now there was a question, a comment that I heard that, well, no one wants to live underneath the power line or around power lines. So just in this general area, the orange represents homes that are built up to those easements that exist in that area. So you can already see there are several that are right up to the easement. The easement just means you can't build beyond that point. Those easements are wide enough, so if the wind blows, the lines can sway and won't hit anything. And then it went a little step further, and it's a little harder to see just because it's citywide, but you see the power line corridor that goes north-south, and there's probably a couple hundred homes that are up against that power line corridor. Then you have these two... ones that we're talking about that go over Roy High, over this property, the dead end on the east side of I-15. So there's several hundred homes that butt up against these power lines, and you don't hear them having too many issues with it. Now, one thing that was mentioned, the reason for the rezone is because the R-18 does not allow for a private road. It has to be public, 60-foot right-of-way, And once you start getting that configuration, all of a sudden all that land starts getting gobbled up where you couldn't build upon. Private road can be as small as 30 feet, just has to meet the fire department's requirements on width, and a turnaround so they can get out. And by doing that, then you start getting more parcels that can be built upon. That's the only reason I believe he went for the R3. Now, all of this can also be done via development agreement. Now the development agreement's not in front of you, so it's not something we can approve or look at, but you could make it a condition for approval that one is developed and put into place with 18 units, private road, HOA, those type of things. So you do have those options. So staff would recommend approval of the request or recommendations. You could deny the rezone and just recommend that a development agreement is reviewed and approved by the council for those aspects.

Can I ask a clarifying question, Steve? So with the private road, the city would not be responsible for that maintenance of that road. Is that correct? Correct. It would be an HOA. Perfect. Thank you.

And just for clarification, so a house in an R18 could be three stories, 35 feet.

35 feet, peak of roof. If it's R13. 35 feet, peak of roof. 35 feet, okay. So the height doesn't change. And again, he has no desire to build it multifamily, and I think that's what, reason why he'd want a development agreement is just to ensure that it's only gonna be 18 units, no more, nothing else.

So the question is, on the building agreement, if we do take it to the R3, if by chance he, sorry, A little better? Yeah. All right. Sorry. So if by chance we do change the zone and have that agreement, the development agreement, and the developer decides that it's not worth it, it's going to back out, and we've already changed the zone, how do we safeguard that it doesn't go to a multifamily?

Well, that's what the development agreement would be for.

So the development agreement would stay with that classification. Yes, we'd record it against the property. So regardless of who develops it, it stays with that.

Correct. That's why I was saying if you don't feel that the R3 zone is appropriate, and again, the only reason for the R3 is because it allows for private roads. If you don't think the R3 is appropriate, you can deny the request and then just one of those conditions that a development agreement is put into place that has all those stipulations, private road, 18 units.

OK. Any other questions for Steve? Okay, then a motion is in order.

Motion to go into public hearing. I'll second.

A motion and a second to go into public hearing. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we're now in public hearing. So now is the opportunity for many members of the public who would like to to come up and speak to this project. When you come forward, please state your name and the city that you live in. And then tell us what your thoughts are. We'll give everybody three minutes to speak. That's almost a full page of notes if you were to read it. So that will go by pretty quick, but it is adequate time to address that. If you could refrain from repeating the comments that are made before you. So if you agree with something to say, hey, I agree with that. And then tell us your new thoughts. That's helpful and keeps the meeting moving along a little bit. And then just please be respectful. No applauding, cheering. Those kinds of things, just be respectful of people when they speak. So the time's now yours and you can come up and when somebody's speaking, somebody else can come behind them. That helps things move along as well.

Hi, my name's James Openshaw and I live at 3066 West, 4600 South in Roy. I'm very familiar with this property there. I've lived right there in that house for 33 years and looked at that property forever. So explain to me, when you say multifamily, you're talking about apartments? No, and we'll address all the questions afterward, but what he's proposing is single-family homes that are not connected. That was my biggest concern. They was going to try to stick some apartments in there like they've done everywhere else. Wherever there's a piece of land, they just try to stick something and then make it a POV so they can make more of them and stuff. But I know that the power lines have been an issue for a long time, and I would like to see it stay the same. I know the property's been for sale for a long time and a lot of people has looked at it and they've never done anything with it and I feel like maybe where they're turning it over to a developer that just might be the last ditch effort just to get rid of it to put whatever they can in there and then walk away from it and then us as homeowners around there it decreases our property value of our homes so I'm very concerned about that so those are my concerns thank you thank you

Hi, I'm Deborah. I live in Roy. I'm at 4628 South 3000 West. I guess my biggest concern is I would absolutely encourage you guys to make sure that they couldn't change, right, the plan, right? I know you guys have said multiple times we would want to make sure it would be single family dwelling. not switch last minute to apartment buildings. My biggest concern is I would just want to halt it here because I know things always change and people go, oh, well, remember 10 years ago when they did this? But also with that, I'm not crazy about HOA either. I feel like it's kind of a buzzkill to the community, right? I've only lived in my house for a few years, but I'm surrounded by people who've lived in their house for 30, right? We don't want to see private people paying up in new coming houses, HOAs, right? It's not what Roy is. It's not what it's about. And I just encourage that we use the space for something better, right? Community gardens, expand on parks, right? It could be used for a lot of things, but I don't know. I'm just, I ask you guys to, if you're going to change zoning and you're going to make it something different, make sure there's fail safes there, right? So we don't look across the street and have, I don't know, people clogging up our roads because they're having house parties at apartments. So thanks.

Thank you.

Hello, Deanne Chaston, I'll be a broken record. Don't change that general plan and the future land use map if you don't have to. In 2023, that was adopted after, I don't know, I wasn't there, but public input, and that's what's there. The landowner doesn't want... multifamily. The neighbors don't want multifamily. It doesn't sound like you guys want multifamily. Don't rezone it multifamily. You guys kind of brought up what Dave was kind of, or sorry, Dan was kind of saying what I was thinking. What happens if he folds and it's then zoned multifamily, but you said you put in a development agreement. I can't read the development agreement, so I don't know if I trust that. I'll have to watch that close when it goes to the next level. But for all those fail safes, why don't you leave it zoned the way it is, the way the neighbors have seen it, the way the general plan sees it, the way the future land use map sees it, and make the development agreement, if everybody's cool with this, let him have that private road, let him have that configuration that seems so much safer in case know this doesn't go through it still stays zoned as single family not multi-family this multi-family thing that i just it seems scary so everybody seems to want the single family then don't change the zoning change allowing him to do that and i also have a problem with the city taking somebody's you know this this is a property that's unique is what it said in the in the We don't need to change the rules for one person that can't quite configure their land. He needs to follow the rules, follow the general plan, follow the easements and what they say. We can't pull strings for that. Even giving him a private road is kind of pulling strings, but I'd rather that than like multifamily go in. So keep it safe, don't rezone it, do it a different way.

Hello, I'll go next. My name's Brandy Erickson, and I am on 2953 West, 4475 South. Looking at it, so i'm one of the older homes that was on the dead end before they built the couple new ones whoever drove down there so um when we moved in we've been there 26 years so when we moved in and the home was built those easements stopped our home from there or we would have had neighbors behind us i mean it should have been a neighborhood where the street went through but because of those power lines people don't go back and look at the history of what's going on. So they pretty much had that piece of property that they couldn't do anything with. So they put it up for sale and a Park City guy bought it sight unseen and he couldn't do anything. He kept trying to build on it. They said, no, no, it went into foreclosure. And that's when Mr. Fuller here took over the property for pretty cheap. It went pretty cheap. So if you look at that property now, he's made quite a bit of money with the lots that he's put on there now. Roy City, when we came six years ago, and we're fighting this, we said okay to the homes that they were putting in because that would put the road through. so roy city was like oh i mean they made him do a whole bunch of different easement changes so that he could put those homes in there the newer homes which we're great with i mean that road going through has been fine we'd like to put in a pothole there though just fyi for people to hit when they go around the corner but it's been great we love the families it's been great little families and that that have moved in there um i feel like the signs that he put up in the fields were strategic they were placed in places that people were like oh i didn't see that oh did you see that no i didn't see that there i mean it wasn't put just right in the middle where it's like here here's a public notice everybody show up and you know figure it out but so a lot of my neighborhoods here we've talked about it but we feel like if it changes just like now 20 years ago did you guys look up to see why they were declining the build there why wasn't built 26 29 years ago and we built our home

because they couldn't build there.

So things have kind of changed and they've changed easements for him. Roy City at one time wanted to purchase that land and he gave such a price tag on it that they were like, there's no way. And it wasn't worth that. He's never sold it. So the money he's made just for selling some of those lots, just finish the rest of the lots that were approved. You have plenty of money from it. This is more of like he's getting greedy with the property instead of just finishing out and building single family homes for people to live in. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Schabacher, 3088 West, 4600 South. Be the second lot from the corner. I've lived there for 20 years. I went to the city council meeting when they originally proposed the subdivision. And it seems like the city is gonna put that agreement in for the single family dwellings, and that was my only concern. So I really don't have a problem with this at all. Thank you.

Hi, my name is LaVon Castaneda.

Come up to the microphone, please.

My name is LaVon Castaneda, and I live on 3100 West, 4600 South, on the corner. I have an issue with the idea of those houses being built there, because we have Walmart coming in within the mile, okay? What about our water? Did anybody consider that? We have so many water restrictions right now. Well, based off of the 18 houses and the US Census Bureau, Roy, Utah has an estimated 2.97 people per household. with Roy having 13,103 homes within the city limits. Roy's city having 4,831 people per mile, square mile. So per calculations of three people households in Utah Division Water, Roy's sources website puts a family of three in Roy, Utah using 3,000 to 6,000 gallons of water per month per person. equaling 9,000 to 18,000 gallons of water per month. Also, during peak summer months, each home averages another extra 20,000 gallons of water a month during the summer months, making it a 65 to 75% increase of watering just for outside. Now, a family of three up to 18,000 gallons of water a month equals out to 216,000 gallons of water per year. Now you times that by 18, that is 3.888 million gallons of water that those homes will take. on average for Utah State guidelines or what they've put up. My question is, we already have such a water deficit now. How is that going to help our city? with that water usage alone. And the power lines, I don't understand how they say that you guys can build under power lines considering the act deciding the Siding High Voltage Power Act of 95, where it states that no buildings needing slab or footings can be built, and private roads or driveways can be built under power lines. Now, this act was enacted in 1995, so the houses that were built there before was before 1995, most of them that I think of. So where you say that the power lines go all the way through up to Roy High, yeah, those houses have been there way before 1995. So I'm just wondering how we can place that and survive as a city.

Thank you, that's your time. Appreciate your comments, thank you.

Cindy Winnemroy, I swear I would never do this again, but I just want to bring it to the attention of all those people who say only single living homes. A year and a half ago, two years ago, a builder came and said he wanted to put 120 craftsman style town homes behind my neighborhood along the front runner train track. Nothing happened. Nothing happened. Nothing happened. Now there are 290 low income apartments shining bright lights in everybody's bedroom windows, blocking any sort of a decent view we used to have. Adding to that, I have a regular stream of cars behind my house now. I'm just saying, when you say single family but rezone it, Because in case anything happens in the future, that makes you unbelievable. It makes it not valuable. You need to not change the zoning so that we know for sure what's happening tonight continues happening in the future, because it sure didn't happen where I live.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Diane Jensen. I live at 3027 West 4600 South, right across the street. My only concerns are once you rezone it multifamily, what's going to stop if it falls through, what they're doing falls through someone else buying that land and then wanting to put in multifamily units? Is there a stop play there? Do we do this all over again? What's there a guarantee of us not looking at apartments in my view? Otherwise, I agree with everybody else. I do. We love the open land. We've been there for 25 years. We love it. We just love the open land.

Anybody else from the public that would like to speak to this?

Hello, Alex Ditmore, I live at 2985 West, 4475 South. Based on my research on this and stuff like that, I think that it would help the citizens in this area concerns. I'm fine with the plan and developing the land. I'd like to see it develop, but I'd like to see it done the right way. R2 would be another alternative to the redistricting. You could still put a private road, based on my understanding of it, with an agreement from the city. So re-district, or re-zoning this to R2 instead of R3 would be a better solution, in my opinion, to this plan. And I think that would help us out, and that's, thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm Ty Chaston. I will repeat myself many, many times, but it's ignored. We have a general plan. But we never adhere to it. We constantly change it. What's the point of having a general plan? If we can't stick to it, then what's the point of having this planning commission? We gotta have reason for why we're gonna make a change. And many times, I'm not seeing the benefits. I don't see the business coming in. I see more swimming pools coming in. Yet we're supposed to be cutting water. I know these are single homes, but we allow this, we allow it everywhere else. If we wanna make changes like this, we gotta change the general plan and get everybody on board. We're missing the boat.

All right, I'll try to hurry here. My name is Zach Coulahan. I live on 4532 South, 2950, right where the backside of that property will be. But I'm going to read through this, try to hurry. My primary concern is that the proposed land use designation and rezoning are not harmonious with the existing development pattern or the surrounding area. The subject property is located within an established neighborhood that is overwhelmingly characterized by low density single family residential development. The surrounding homes were built and purchased with the reasonable expectation that the area would remain consistent with the city's adopted general plan and existing zoning pattern. Introducing a multi-family residential designation and higher density zoning into the center of a neighborhood comprised almost entirely of single family homes would fundamentally alter the character of the area and create an incompatible land use transition. Good planning practice generally encourages high density residential development to be located along major transportation corridors, commercial areas, mixed use centers, or other locations where the infrastructure and surrounding land uses can better accommodate increased density. In this case, the proposed rezone would introduce a substantially different housing type into the middle of a stable single family neighborhood without an appropriate transition between uses. I'm also concerned that the approval of this request could establish a precedent for additional higher density rezonings within similarly situated single family neighborhoods throughout Royce City. Incremental changes of this nature can erode the predictability and stability that residents and property owners rely upon when making long term investments in their homes and communities. Importantly, denial of this application would not deprive the property owner of reasonable economic use of the land. The property is currently designed and zoned for single family residential development, which remains a viable and economical productive use. The applicant retains the ability to develop residential housing consistent with the existing zoning and the expectations established by the city's general plan. In fact, the public notice indicates that the applicant is simultaneously seeking approval of development agreement to allow 18 single family dwelling on a private road. The existence of this proposal demonstrates that the property can be developed for residential purposes under single family development pattern. This strongly suggests that the requested general plan amendment and R3 zoning are not necessary to make productive use of this property, but rather are intended to increase development intensity beyond what has historically been planned for this area. The distinction is important. The question before the commission is not whether the property should be developed

That's your time. Okay.

Also, I mean, he's not planning on developing himself. He's going to sell it. And multiple of us have had agreements with him. So if you're going to change it, we better have the wording written down before you approve it.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this? Okay. Seeing nobody else.

Motion to go out of public hearing.

second motion a second all in favor aye any opposed okay we are now out of public hearing you don't have to but you're welcome to you do have the option to rebut comments so let's see starting let me see if i had any notes here which uh

Let's see. About an HOA, I think there's pros and cons about an HOA. It's probably not relevant to people if they're not going to be in the HOA. It wouldn't matter. I think you can control dog barking and different things with an HOA that the city has a hard time otherwise controlling. So there could be an advantage to an HOA. Wouldn't apply to anybody who's not in the HOA. When you talk about the history, oh, yes. Is it Erickson who talked about the history of it? Couldn't build there. I don't know if there's, I don't think there's ever been any type of a ruling that said they couldn't build there. I don't think it made us familiar with any price tags. So let's see, if I scroll down through here, what guarantees somebody mentioned. So whatever is receptive, if the city looks at a piece of property and the city said, this is what we would prefer, we're receptive to accommodating whatever the city wants. I think one big issue is the density. The density is exactly the same as every place else around there. So Mr. Skidmore mentioned this R2, which I'm not familiar with, which also would be an option if that fit. The issue was with the roadway seemed to be more of the issue of why we wanted this agreement. And so the density is exactly the same. Anyway, I appreciate your time, but we just wanted to, it's time for me and Hayfield's come and gone, so it's time to do something with it. It's never been, it's not like it's sitting there because there's a problem with it. It's sitting there because we haven't done anything with it in the past. I appreciate your time. Thanks for now.

Let me ask you one more question while we've got you up here. So currently it's R18. This would do R13. And it seems like the only real issue is just the private road. If this were to stay R18, you could do that through development agreement. Is that something you're, as a property owner? Because I think property rights are important. So I'd love to hear your opinion on that.

Yeah, I don't know. It would depend on what the city's opinion is. as opposed to a property agreement, why do we need the zoning? So one reason were just the configurations of the road. So as opposed to trying to navigate the 150 foot, make a variance, it just might be simpler to change the zoning is my understanding. So whatever configuration it comes up with, I think you would want, I can't imagine you wouldn't want a private road that the homeowners take care of and maintain. I think that'd be a nice benefit if everybody was on a private road and the people who are utilizing the road would be the ones who would maintain it primarily, except for the bigger arteries. So I would think there would be a benefit to the taxpayers if there's a private road there, that would be paid by the HOA. I think there's a reason there's HOAs for some benefits to them as far as maintaining front yards, particularly on a place. And I don't know if an HOA was possible under R18. But the configuration we have, we can handle, I think, whatever people, other than the people that just want the hayfield to remain there, I think it can be handled through a development agreement. And the simplest path, was my understanding, would be to change the zoning and then have a construction agreement on there, which, by the way, is recorded and runs with the land in perpetuity until the governing body chooses to do something else.

And I'm just exploring options here because I think there's kind of two ways to look at it. We can do the rezone, tie it there, and if that's a recorded thing that stays with the property, that's a lot different than just relying on a development agreement that if you back out or whatever. The other way is to leave at R18 and then do this through a development agreement. My understanding, Steve, maybe you can answer that. As far as the HOA and the private road, that could still be done under R18 through a development. So either way, the development agreement is kind of the key.

The development agreement is the supersede.

So I think both are very valid options, and so that's why I was curious your opinion on that.

I'm not sure, but I think maybe under the different zonings, you have different, for example, there's regulations on, or there's requirements on how long you can have a cul-de-sac, for example, and how you would exit, and different configurations. So one reason to rezone might be that you don't start changing variances, so. as opposed to making variances in an R18. One other approach would go to this multifamily with an agreement that's gonna remain single family, but then you don't need variances for the width of the road and the way you exit those, like the emergency fire exits that are gonna come out of there. So I think there's a reason where the city may not want to start the precedent of taking our 1-8 zone and saying, well, we're going to let you make a little road, and we're going to let you put an HOA in, and we're going to let you exit differently, and your fringes will be different, which is customary quite often to zone. To rezone, then there wouldn't be variances because they're allowed under that zoning. So that might be one reason why it would be simpler to do a rezone as opposed to a variance. the configuration, the density, which I think was a theme here. Nobody wants, and nobody wants, believe me, the big jammed in there, hooked on condos. the density remains exactly the same. And most of these lots are substantially larger in area than the surrounding area. So it should be consistent. And I think the path that the city suggested as an option would be the logical path with a rezone. So appreciate your time. Thanks. Thank you.

Steve, do you want to address questions? I do have to say, though, for the record, asking for a pothole in your road, that's a new one. Nobody's ever asked for a pothole before.

Just kind of go through some of the questions and comments that are relevant. Someone mentioned community gardens. The issue would be is the city would have to purchase the land in order to do that, or somebody else would have to purchase the land and allow for others to do stuff on it. This landowner isn't looking to do that. Everybody does have property rights and can build what's appropriate to the zone. So... you know knowing we're downstairs is going through a budget issue and rest this month as well the city doesn't have money to to buy it or we would have already and done other stuff i've heard a couple comments on the general plan yes it took a couple years to to redo but a general plan just doesn't put on the shelf and left for 20 years and you don't just say no development according to the general plan that's what every five years you re-look at the general plan, is this still consistent? And in between times, there are general plan amendments that come up to play. Hence why it's a public hearing, because it's the public who helped write the general plan to get it adopted. So now the public is being asked about the change to a general plan. So it's not that the general plan just gets stuck and we don't develop like that for the next 20 years. If that's the case, Half the development in Clinton shouldn't be there because they didn't have a general plan that looked at Clinton and all their commercial. And Roy's was 20 years old, actually 22 years old by the time we adopted a new one. So development general plans are a living document should be looked at all the time. Signs, the property owner did not place the signs. Our code enforcement officer placed them on the street so people that drove by could see it. Everybody within 300 feet of the property received a letter, so they were notified and it was, the signs were there for other people that drive by that could see it and know that there's a meeting going on. So they weren't strategically placed so no one saw it. It was just so others could drive by and see it. As mentioned, this is, he only wants to build single family homes, so if we approve a general plan amendment and a rezone, or forward on a general plan amendment and rezone, that's great. Development agreement should still go with it. That has the configuration as shown with the private road as context. It wouldn't take variances, because the development agreement is basically a zone being placed on top of it with the limitations that it would have, and then the underlying zone would dictate everything else. So it's almost like an overlay zone with the development agreement. Development agreements are recorded, so it would continue on. So if Mr. Fuller sold it to somebody else, they'd have to abide by it. It's not just him and him only and then somebody else is different. Water. This is an issue that I know, as Bren brought up in last year, We adopted a water conservation plan in the general plan. Yes, we amended the general plan to place that in there, but in our general plan, it did talk about all the aspects of water. One thing that a lot of people don't know is right now, West Haven gets water from three providers, and one of them is Royce City. So if we start looking at, we get to start restricting water, West Haven's gonna suffer long before Roy City does. We're a water provider, not just to our citizens, but outside of our city. Yes, it is always concern. Yes, new homes would increase the amount of water usage, but we that live here now should always be conserve water today. So if you have grass in places that don't get used, get rid of it. If you, you know, your park strips, no one plays on the grass and the park strip, let's get rid of, you know, there's ways that we can conserve the water so that It's always there, even though we're in a drought and things are coming on. As in building under the power lines, Rocky Mountain Power is going to be the one that approves that. They can't deny anybody that doesn't build underneath their easement. If the easement's here, I could build a house there. Rocky Mountain's not going to do anything, regardless of an act of 20, 30 years ago. Blocking view, we've mentioned that a few times. Our view ends at the end of our property, not up to the mountains. It's always great to have a view, but we're never guaranteed that that view will be there. I could plant a tree that grows 70 feet tall and your view's gone and nothing got developed. So we can't look at it on the aspect of views. The reason why rail runner is being developed as it is because it was rezoned per the general plan to have a mixed use multifamily around the front runner track. So that's why that development is taking off and the ones before did not. In fact, before rail runner, there was a storage unit being proposed that was going to be 60 feet tall as opposed to 35 foot tall townhomes. Again, if a development agreement is what's going to be go through regardless if it's multifamily is what's been rezoned or we just recommend for a development agreement to go, it will be recorded with the property. An R2 zone, great idea, but that doesn't guarantee density will be preserved. An R3 allows for 12 units an acre. An R2 allows 11.6 units an acre. It would kind of be one of those, yeah, let's put a bunch of duplexes in there, but it still has to abide by the same aspects as the R18 zone on private or public road. So yeah, duplexes could be built under a development agreement.

Yeah. Okay, thank you, Steve. Any discussion?

Can I ask, let me ask just a few clarifying questions if I can, Steve. So as far as process goes, I mean, is there a benefit one way or another to changing the zoning on this property versus just handling this all through a development agreement?

A development agreement basically is a rezone. You're just allowing for certain things with the underlying zone. So I like the idea, I mean, if you do, if the rezone gets approved, recommended by this body, approved by the council, staff would still recommend a development agreement just so from the future on, you know what's gonna be built. If this body sends up a negative recommendation for a rezone, I would still say the aspect of we like the idea of a development agreement and then list those things that you'd want in there so that it can still develop. I know Mr. Fuller talked about variances. This isn't a variance. This would just be a rezone with modifications to it.

And then just as a follow-up question on that, is there a way that we can condition the rezone on the development agreement?

Conditionally rezone? What do you mean?

So just there would have to be a development agreement in place in order for us to change the zoning?

Yeah, if you wanted to rezone it multifamily, I would suggest that a development agreement is put in place with 18 units on a private road. Okay. That way, it guarantees that it's just going to be single family. Either way, I'd want some sort of recommendation of a development agreement. Now, the reason why it's not there is just time and legal, but the agreements are the same as has been. It's just that one section that would have what the aspects are an agreement's going to be done with or for, to, whatever.

And just to clarify, process for the public. So tonight, we're a recommending body. Whatever we do tonight, approve it, deny it, whatever, it will go to the city council, and they have the final decision. They're the ones who actually make the decision. So just as far as process, I just wanted to clarify that. Steve, do you know when it would go to the council to be on their agenda?

I think next week they're still doing budget, and they have to do a tentative budget by next week. I'm hoping then, if not, it'll be July.

Yeah. Thank you. I don't know, and I think either way, I think both of them have protections in place as long as there's the development agreement. So, I mean, whichever way we decide to go, I think there's ways to ensure. Because I think overall, I mean, like I said, when I drove past this land last night, the power lines are an obvious issue to work around on that property. But as far as building single-family homes in Roy... I think it's a good thing. I think it's something that's needed, and this will provide opportunities. It'll probably be lower cost houses just with some of the limitations that are on those properties. I mean, I think overall it's a pretty good proposal. It's just how do we go about making it happen.

The good, bad, and or ugly, all open land that's still left in Roy to develop has problems. There's a reason why they're still there. There's a reason why it's still empty. It's going to have to... someone's gonna have to finagle something in order to get that land developed.

Yeah, but a private road, I mean, we're in a budget crisis in Roydon, and having a private road, I think, is something that takes that burden. We don't have to plow it, we don't have to fix it. I mean, that's taken care of by the HOA, and I think it makes sense that there is an HOA, too, to do that, so. Oh, it's a public hearing's over, sorry. Okay, well, just so that you know, So, okay. Any other comments?

I think public hearings over sorry I think if we're looking at any avenue to move forward requires a development agreement anyway i'm leaning towards utilizing that development agreement, rather than making that zoning change. and streamlining it a little bit throughout that process, especially if it sounds like everything that would have to be addressed, regardless of the zoning has to come up through that development agreement anyway.

I have no issue with that.

Like leave it on R18. Leave it on R18.

Leave it on R18 and do the, because I think we've really got two options. Leave it R18, have the council do the development agreement, or we can rezone it with the condition that there is the development agreement to go with it. So I think either way, and either way it's going to the council, and I think this is something, you know, if they feel the opposite, like they can easily do that there too.

I feel like it still follows the desire of the general plan where there is the statement in the general plan about finding other areas that can be developed and such. That goal of the general plan is still being met without having to change our zoning map and our general plan. And I think that's a positive from my perspective with the information that I have in front of me right now.

I think Steve's comment is correct. The general plan is just a living document. So when we look at this, we can't look at, you know, well, they have spoken, and like you said, it's a fixed thing for 23 years. Things change. Generations change. So it is a living document. And so changes can happen. But I agree with the majority of the comments. I don't know that it's necessary to make a change to the general plan, that we stay with the R18 and just put in the conditions that allow for the private road, allow for the HOA, all the things that they're asking for. I would support that. I guess you want that in a motion?

yeah it could be a couple of motions given what we've got on the agenda so just to if you're looking leaning towards recommending to deny I would first motion on the general plan do that on the motion to on the rezone you can do that plus with the condition that there's a development agreement

Okay. Well, I make a motion that we forward a denial recommendation for the change in the general plan from single family resident to multifamily resident.

Just before we have a second, just to clarify. So the motion is to deny the general plan, which according to what we've kind of discussed here, that would be the route of leaving the zoning the way it is and just doing it through. Correct.

Yes, that's the motion.

Just want to make sure we're understanding what's going on here. Okay, so we have a motion to deny the change in the general plan. I'll second that. Have a second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Graf?

Aye.

Commissioner Bailey?

Aye.

Commissioner Calley? Aye. Commissioner Bills?

Aye.

Commissioner Tanner?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed? Aye.

Okay, so then moving through the logical order, the next would be amending the zoning map from R18.

And you're just going to have two motions because the development agreement is not on the table because it wasn't provided. But you can make that as a condition on the rezone. Deny the rezone, but forward on a. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF. OKAY.

I MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ZONING MAP FROM R18 TO R3 BUT WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE RECOMMEND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM ALLOWING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A PRIVATE ROAD.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND A ROLL CALL VOTE AGAIN.

Mr. Tanner? Aye. Mr. Bills?

Aye.

Mr. Calley? Aye. Mr. Bailey? Aye. Mr. Graf?

Aye.

Mr. Reid?

Aye.

Yeah, and I hope you understand what we did here. Like, I think from the discussion, I personally can speak for myself. I'm very in favor of this project. I think it's a great project. And so that's kind of where we're at is moving it forward to the council and going through a development agreement and leaving it R18. So... Thank you, appreciate your time. And thank you members of the public for coming and for speaking. We'll now move on to agenda item number six, which is continue to request for building excavation. I'll wait just one minute here.

Building excavation?

Oh, sorry, elevation, sorry.

Those are all my neighbors. I live on 48th. This is my daughter's friend.

Ryan, you know how to clear a room.

Just move on to the next agenda item.

Okay, we'll continue with our meeting. We'll do, this is a continued agenda item from our last meeting, and it's a request for building elevation exception to the zoning code for Mountain America Credit Union located approximately 1900 West, 5600 South. And I don't see the applicants here, so.

Yeah, because last time we denied their request for site plan, there was a motion to deny the building elevation, then there was a substitute motion to table.

And we were confused.

Basically, staff would still recommend to deny the request. It took us a couple years to get the zoning the way that we wanted it, and to make an exception on the second building to be built in the zone would, might as well just go rewrite the whole thing.

And the applicant said that they were willing to build the second door, so I don't feel bad if we just make a motion and we can vote on it, unless there's further discussion.

I make a motion that we deny the request for the zoning exception for the architectural review for Mountain American Credit Union.

Okay, we have a motion to deny for Mountain America Credit Union in a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that denial is unanimous. We'll move on to agenda item number seven, which is a request for site plan approval for Pathway Landscaping, located at 1916 West, 3350 South. And is the applicant here for that one? Or Pathway, go ahead and come on up.

Good evening, commissioners. I have some paperwork if you guys want to see that, but I'll kind of run through what the plan is here. My name is Brady Hale. I'm with Pathway Landscaping. We're insisting on site improvements and fence proposal for the old absolute auto property located in 1916 West, 3350 South, Rowe, Utah. The intended use for this property is for Ewing Outdoor Supply, which operates directly west across from the property. The purpose of the application is to allow the property to be used as a secured storage yard, supporting Ewing's existing Roy operation. This is not a new retail location, manufacturing facility, or high traffic operation. The site will be used primarily for outdoor storage on landscape and landscape and irrigation related materials associated with Ewing's existing business. We're proposing to put up a fence just around the property asphalt line and just for extended storage for Ewing to expand their operation in the Roy community.

Any questions?

I have one. It's kind of a line of sight on that 3350 in Frontage Road on that corner. Is there a requirement for that maybe to be clipped a little bit so there's a better line of sight for that intersection?

Yes.

Yes. So that would need to be clipped so it has that proper setback? Yeah. It didn't show that, but we'd want to make sure that happened.

Well, and I think that was in your comments about no more than two feet, two feet high on the fence, because there's a fence and some parking and things like that that would need to be addressed, but I think that could be worked out. Absolutely.

The site plan doesn't show that. That was clarified.

Yep.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you. We may have some more in just a minute, but otherwise we'll turn it over to Steve.

Okay, thank you.

As mentioned, this is a request for site plan approval for pathway landscaping. I first want to say thank you to Brady for not bringing up Kevin, the property owner.

I like Kevin.

No. For property or just distinguishing where it's at in the city, it's the northern end of town, up by West Haven and Ogden, just south of the UP Railroad, just off of 19. The requested site plan, the use itself as a contractor storage yard is fine. a fence to put up is more appropriate than to do that just to secure stuff. There was just a few things that the DRC had mentioned within their staff report, within your staff report that would just need to be done. So staff would just recommend approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Man, I can't talk today. Tongue-tied.

Is that coming?

Any questions for Steve, or a motion is in order?

I'll make a motion, just because I like Kevin. I do like Kevin.

I like Kevin, too. I'm just glad he didn't come up.

I'm going to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the request for the site plan review with the conditions as stated in the staff report.

Second.

Motion to approve and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, passes unanimously, thank you. Item number eight is a request for a site plan and architectural approval for DJ Grading, located at 1954 West, 3350 South. Oh, he has a question.

April, come on, come on here.

I'm Eric Anderson. I live in West Haven. I am the builder of this project They're trying to move to the side just I can't hear anyway, so it's alright They're trying to add on to their existing building to add a little more office space in another service paper getting their equipment ready to go out on the job and work and I didn't have all of the information from Steve when I actually started this, but I do and I think that we can work our way through this as we're going. We did provide a site plan for you and the site plan was basically built with one lot the lot that the building is actually sitting on. The owners own actually both lots. And with the required access of only 15 feet left after adding the additional square footage onto the building that they have, would make it a little bit narrow for the fire department or for anybody else to work with it. So we actually had them go down and make a quick claim deed. It's already been recorded at Weber County to add the two lots together, as we talked the other day. And I think that that's probably going to be the best thing for us to do to be able to expand that out. I realize that we're a little bit in front of ourselves because we don't have the site plan with that on it. But if we actually put that on, then we'll have our 20 foot access for the fire department. We'll actually have access for the 14 stalls of parking that will be in front. The other things that are basically on the list will all be sufficed. for Steve and everything else. And I appreciate his input in getting us together so that we can actually move forward with this project. Whatever Steve's comments has got, I'm more than happy to work with and see what we can do. I think what we need to do is probably actually get you another site plan and have a continuation of this maybe in the next meeting so that we can actually make sure everybody's got what they need. right thank you we'll give some time to steve and then appreciate it any questions before we okay thank you appreciate your time the other things that i thought i'd rather mention i did not bring the color chart because the materials are going to be actually matching the existing building that's there the rock work on the bottom the metal that's on the top and the sides it'll actually i mean we're not really changing or dramatically doing anything different than what's already existing in the neighborhood So I appreciate the time. Awesome, thank you.

Steve. OK, so as mentioned, this is site plan and architectural approval for DJ grading there on 3350. You'll recognize that the aerial is just down the street from Kevin's property there. They're just looking to add on to the building. And sorry, the site plan is tilted, so north is to the bottom. They're just going to add a 30 by 70 building on to the south end of the property. They do own the property to the south. That's what he was talking about, that he combined the two properties together.

I'll get you after it. It should have come to me for approval.

But if that's what they want to do, use that to access, that would help solve the fire department's problem, an issue. They would just have to amend their site plan to show that. It wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary just for me to say, let's approve it with the conditions as mentioned in the staff report, because we'll make sure that your access and everything meets the code. And if they're going to leave certain sections off, we'll just put that as part of the site plan. Now, if you wanted to table it until the site plan comes back, you're more than welcome to do that as well. I just think it's really up to you. Staff would be amenable to either way. So just elevation-wise, the zone does allow for metal buildings. They're going to put a little wainscot of rock bricks, so to speak, on the south and west elevation. You can't see it on the west elevation. It's a snowstorm at this moment. So staff would recommend approval or tabling either aspect.

Thanks, Steve. Any discussion to that? I'm kind of fine if we made a motion to move it on. I don't know how others feel.

I don't think anything's going to change.

Yeah, I mean, really all you're going to get new is just an access to make it wider so the fire department can get in and out.

And they can't do it without that. So I mean, it's, yeah. So motion's in order, or if there's further discussion.

make a motion to approve the site plan for DJ grading located at 1954 West 3350. So you might need to get closer to the mic.

We have a motion to approve the site plan. I'll help you out there. No, you did just it's quiet because you're far back. So sorry, we have a motion to approve and a second. All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We will now move on to agenda. Architecture. Oh, architecture. Sorry.

Make a recommendation that we approve the architecture for. D.J. Grady located at 1954 West, 3350 South, sorry. Second. Do we have a motion and a second?

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes unanimously as well. Steve, your ability to speak is rubbing off on me tonight. Agenda item number nine is a request for site plan and architectural approval for Harman's located at 5370 South, 1900 West.

I have packets.

Do you guys want our comments to look through?

Sure. Tree killer.

Because my iPad's dead. I know. Sorry. No, no.

I was commenting to her because she has her packet printed out today.

Oh, you already got one. Because my iPad's dead. This is not more information. Or at least more pictures. You don't get one.

Oh, I have an extra. Do you need an extra?

No, I think we have enough. Thank you.

Okay, I'm Kristen Voros. I'm with Design Sequence. I'm here on behalf of Harman's. We also have Hayden Scott, who is the vice president of store development for Harman's, and then also Scott Lewis, who is the president of Harman's. So if we have any Harman's-specific questions, we can direct them to them.

So essentially what Harman's is proposing is a remodel and refresh for their store in Roy.

the biggest scope of the work includes rebuilding the two entrances and basically modernizing the facade of the store it also includes updates to the ada parking to make it more compliant and work with the new entries it also includes a new glassed-in seating area along the front corner so you can sort of see that in the if you're looking at the front page on the elevation on the right the five windows to the right that's into the seating area If you go to the second page, you can see sort of a comparison of what we're proposing with what is existing and basically just shows the modernization of the center, trying to bring some life to it, trying to improve upon what we've got. So the next couple of pages are site plans. So we've got, oh, it's up there now. So we've got a site plan. It essentially shows the two new entries. It shows the Glaston seating area and then the ADA upgrades to the parking. on the next page. This is the landscape plan. That was one thing that came up in the staff report is that we didn't have the landscaping plan yet. So there are three landscaped islands that will be modified as part of this. There's one tree that will remain. There are four small trees that will come out and then five new trees will go back in. In addition, we will put in grasses, flowers, and shrubs. This is just to show you the improvements that we're doing inside the store. We are updating the flooring, the decor, and then obviously the flow as you walk into the store. Right now it's pretty condensed if you walk into the main entrance and you basically run right into a cheese island. So what we're trying to do with the new entry is to sort of open it up and make it a better experience for the customers as you walk in. These are some images of the Harmons in West Valley that was remodeled last year, and basically just show what the idea is for the new look and feel of the inside of the store, just to show sort of what we're trying to accomplish. And then these are just supporting documents if you're interested. It's basically like at the back of your packet, you've got site demo, site utility, site grading. Basically just if there's any specific questions related to that. One comment on site utility is the existing grease trap sits where the new seating area is. So that will be pulled out and a new grease trap will be installed. And it will be per the, whatever the required details are. That's fine. So that's what we have going on. There was a comment, I don't know if, now is the time to talk about it. There was a comment about, in the staff report, about the exterior of the building and the sort of aerospace theme that is intended for that area and how that would apply to our situation. So we just sort of want to see what that means more than anything, so.

All right, any questions before? Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Steve.

As mentioned, this is site plan and architectural approval. Site plan is minimal. I mean, it's just kind of changing configurations, but it is still a change to the site plan. I don't know why I even put an aerial on there. If you don't know where Harman's is and you don't live in Roy, I like bumping into the cheese right at the beginning. So I'm going to be sad because it kind of forces me to get my cravings. But anyway. So site plan-wise, again, it's just changing configurations of some landscape islands and the parking around it. I'm glad the landscaping plan that we just got should satisfy. The comment in the staff report that talked about the aerospace design, it's one of those I fought myself to even if I write it or if I don't. The proposed changes is an improvement to the existing site. It does bring it more to the modern age. The only change, if you did aerospace, would just be some sort of wing coming out of the top. I don't think it's necessary because of the amount of changes. I just would be remiss if I didn't put it in there. But as even the Senate says, it's an improvement. it will make the the building more desirable a little bit more umph to it rather than you know if it was a brand new build i'd be more let's get to the aerospace stuff into it so we can disregard that comment i don't have a beef either way so staff would recommend approval with the conditions in this in the staff report

And just as a clarifying question Steve sorry i'll get closer to the MIC here, I mean, from what I can see just based on these photos, it seems like the color the aesthetic will still match some of the other surrounding buildings in that area correct.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Actually, in some of the buildings in the area, it will make them look worse. That's what I was thinking. The strip malls to the north and south of it. I mean, the only one that would be competing against is the new Wells Fargo building. That's what I was thinking of. It would be a little harder just because that is a lot more modern aspect. But it will definitely make other buildings around want to improve, you hope. Perfect.

I like this project. I love Hermann's.

I just want to see a P-51 on top of the building or something if we're going with the aerospace theme.

A landing pad. I don't want an airplane. It would just be winged.

No, not just any airplane. It needs to be a P-51.

So yeah, a couple of motions are in order.

i can start with the site plan uh i recommend that uh the planning commission forward a positive recommendation oh no we approve oh just approve we um so motion to approve yep yep okay motion to approve the request for site plan with the conditions as stated correct okay i'll second

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously.

On the architecture one, just put in your approval that it's based on this as an improvement. No need to go farther into the aerospace. Or if you want them to be a P-51 on top, then I'll let you fight them.

Me again. I recommend that we approve, that the Planning Commission approve the request for architectural review with the conditions as stated and because it's a site improvement, we're good on the aerospace design component.

I'll second.

Do we have a motion and a second?

I'll second. I beat you, sorry.

No, I said we have a motion and a second because I heard you already, so. All right, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, passes unanimously. Thank you. Three good projects, and it's fun to see changes coming and new businesses and improvements to kind of one of the anchors of Roy, so I appreciate it. We'll now move on to agenda item number 10, which is Commissioner's Minute. Anything any of the commissioners would like to bring forward? Okay, we'll move on to agenda item number 11, staff update, Steve.

Okay, I've got a couple things just to let you know that Jeremy Thompson has stepped down as a planning commissioner. He's had some health concerns and been in and out of the hospital. So he felt like he's more important than the planning commission. I debated him on it, but he won. So we won't have that. We will put up a notification to get applications for the new planning commissioner. So that means, I believe, Braden, you're now upgraded to a full-time, and we'll get a new alternate. The other aspect is just to let you know, the council is holding a truth and taxation meeting during our August meeting in the first or second week of the month. We cannot have any other meetings going on during that, so our meeting is canceled. We won't have one in August. We may still have a work session, but we won't have an action meeting. I don't feel like a special meeting's in order, too difficult to figure out. So just to let you know, the August is canceled.

That's all I got. OK, thank you. On to agenda item number 12.

Are we having a work session this month?

We probably will.

OK.

Actually, I know we will.

Okay.

I probably won't be there because I am getting married. Yay. That's awesome. Lame excuse.

That's a terrible excuse, though. Yeah, just bring her. Honeymoon at Planning Commission.

Maybe we should go there. Mom paying?

No.

Not for us?

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion adjourned and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are now adjourned. Thank you.