Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Like a red phone here.

And a blue phone.

And a yellow phone. For council emergencies. Got a call from the president coming in.

Things are getting too tough.

I don't like when people call me on phone numbers I don't recognize. Yeah, I know. Hey, Sam. Hey, Dan.

I'm slowly muting but.

Finding smiling faces.

Out in my yard and I'm like, oh my gosh, I know that I look awful and I'm sure I stink.

Woohoo!

I'm ready for anything.

I'm finding all my mistakes. No, that's okay. There's certain sections I go, okay, I've got to make sure I do this, do this, do this. I slept all weekend thinking everything was great. Come in Monday, I'm like, ah.

Let us know when you're ready, Steve. All right, we'll call to order our Planning Commission meeting for Royce City for July 14th, 2026. And we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Young. All right, do any of the commissioners have any conflicts that they need to declare tonight?

Nope.

All right, seeing no conflicts, we will move on to agenda item number two, which is approval of the May 26th, 2026 work session minutes.

I think I found an error in line 64. It says City Bailey. I think that should say Commissioner Bailey. So that was, so I'll call you City from now on. So that was the only mistake I found.

All right, so we have that. Any other discussion or a motion?

Oh, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with that change as noted.

All right, do we have a second?

Second. All right, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Agenda item number three is approval of the June 9th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Motion to approve the June 9th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Second.

Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously as well. We'll now move on to agenda item number four, which is a public hearing to consider amending Title 10 zoning regulations, amending chapter 10 property or general property development standards, 32, parking and residential zones. Chapter 19, off-street parking and loading. Two general provisions, 8AIVLA. Steve.

As mentioned, this is amending zoning ordinance regarding parking in the front yard. As in the staff report, Planning Commission being the applicant in this, during our work session in February, it was asked to research to find out how many times the Planning Commission has discussed parking in the front yard, various reasons, whether it be IADUs, winter parking, RV parking, and what have you. So when you look at it, there's about 19 times that the Planning Commission in the last, Seven years has discussed this. City Council, a little bit less than that. But again, quite a bit of discussion has come up. December, there was a change to the code. So the changes proposed here from the Planning Commission was to take it back to what it was prior to December. So it was just making those changes. Because right now, there are some inconsistencies within the code. When you're allowing for two drive accesses into a property that's less than 100, there's still an aspect that says you can't have more than 30% of your front yard in drive access, so it becomes an issue. When you can park on the garage driveway side of the house and the rear yard, the question comes, as was discussed in the Planning Commission, why additional other locations. So just kind of following through with what the Planning Commission on the changes that were requested.

Go ahead, staff would recommend approval is what you said. Any questions for Steve? So maybe just before the public hearing, Steve, when the City Council took this up and made the changes in December, Was there ever a public hearing on those changes?

On these particular ones, there was not. There was not. Okay. It was, the council asked the planning commissioner to look at it, and that was what the meetings were in 2025. So there was four meetings. From the discussion, we did talk about allowing for stuff on busy roads for those amendments. We kind of came up with a hammerhead so they can back into it and leave. but in those discussions, the Planning Commission did not hold a public hearing for changes to the code for allowing parking in the front yard.

Okay, thank you. All right, with no other questions for Steve, a motion's in order to go into public hearing.

Motion to go into public hearing.

All right, we have a motion to go on public hearing. All in favor? Second, second, sorry. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we're now in public hearing, so we'll now invite the public to come forward. If you would please state your name for us and tell us what city you live in. And then we give everybody up to three minutes to speak. And that's about a page worth of notes that you can give in that time period. But we do give you those three minutes. Please tell us what you think related to this specific item related to parking. And if there's something you agree with when you come up, you don't need to repeat that. You can say, hey, I agree with this point that was made earlier. speak to that and then if there's things that you agree on with the audience things like that if you could just please be respectful of those people and let's not cheer or boo or anything like that and we give people the opportunity to speak so with that we'll invite members of the public who would like to speak to this to come forward

Good evening, everyone. Tim Higgs. I'm going to have been Roy. In looking at the proposed verbiage for this, I just had one comment, and I'm really hoping that this is oversight. But the way that it reads, where no vehicle parking shall be permitted in front yard setback areas between front of property line and the front line except on driveways, located in residential zones that directly access a garage or a carport what if people don't have a garage or a carport are they not allowed to park in their driveway that's my question and i'd like to have that consider there's an awful lot of people in the way that don't have garages or carports thank you and just so everybody's aware we'll just make notes of the questions and after the public comment that's perfect thank you through those so thank you

Diane Wilson. I happen to have done some extensive study in regards to this particular issue, and I I would move that we don't reverse this. I believe it needs to be as what was placed in place on December, and if there are some other concerning things go into that, then make those adjustments because some of the key issues when, first of all, you talk about looking at this 19 times, and I think what that does is it lets us know that this is a big topic. This is something that people are considering frequently. We have been asked to do this so many times it means that whatever was in place hasn't been sufficient and so I think that's what, I think we have to be careful that we can't say well we already talked about this 19 times but with time comes changes in situations, changes in the way people are living, changes in the way society functions. So I believe that only moves to the reason that this did need to be checked into again. One of the second things I wanted to mention is that vehicles are larger. There aren't just normal cars anymore and that's where some of that measurements came in. We have a high percentage of multiple families now living in a home and it's very difficult for them to all park in the current parking arrangements and then with our current code, especially with snow and stuff, then they have no place to park in front of the in front of the house or on the road. One of the other very big safety issues that had come up is we have so many people parking on the road now that as you're trying to get out of the driveway, it is very difficult to see. In fact, just people walking and crossing the street, it's very difficult because As you drive by Roy, I'm sure you've seen it, many of those roads are already completely packed with cars parked on both sides. Now, will this change it completely? No, but it definitely will help, and it will change that somewhat. And I believe safety is probably one of the number one reasons that this should not be reversed. Safety is so critical. We talk about that in many other ways, and I believe that's one of the most important parts. We have other cities that have done this before where they have two driveways in the same amount of space that has been outlined in the December code. In fact, that's where that number came from. And I believe there are a lot of other things that could be gone through. There were a lot of specific guidelines that were talked about in the December code. uh city council meeting of why it was important to pass the ordinance and make the changes as they were and so if there's a discrepancy that mr parkinson talks about then let's look at the discrepancy but let's do not backtrack on parking because we have so many issues now it's a different life people are living different lives so all right thank you thank you

I don't often say this, I agree with everything Diane just said. Yeah, I'm Diane Chaston, sorry, thank you. Specifically with multiple families and adult children living in homes, like in my case, they can't afford to get a house, so we have lots of cars. So, specifically that. Also, I wanted to say I was very, very, very impressed with the packet this week, with all of the minutes from the 19 different times. Great, keep doing that, thank you. Appreciate it.

I'm Ty Chaston. I will leave this pretty short, but Diane actually did all of that. Diane, did all of what you said. Hopefully city council can follow the lead here on how a packet should look.

Thank you.

Would anybody else from the public like to speak to this?

I want to make sure everybody that wants to has the opportunity. Okay, a motion is in order.

I have a question first. On the recommendations, it talks about chickens.

Yes, I sent out a new packet.

There's an updated.

Oh, I missed that. Sorry, I was working in my yard. Retract.

Motion to go out of public hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing. All in favor, or second? Second. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we're now out of public hearing. Mr.

Yes, to answer your question, when you cut and paste an old one, you forget certain sections to change, and it was brought up to my attention by our illustrious young lady in the audience that something was wrong with it, so I corrected it, changed it on the website, and resend out the packet.

Ms.

Thank you. I missed that part. Mr.

So I appreciate it for her. She might think I'm annoyed with her, but she does great.

Ms. Yay, Glenda?

Mr. Glenda, yes. Oh, answer questions. Yes. Yes, there are homes out there that don't have a garage or a carport. They just have a designated parking area. It's just a driveway on the side of the house. Could that change to put in there direct access to a garage, carport, or legal parking space? We could do that. that wouldn't change really the definition of where it is, because if you were built in 1940, didn't have a garage, you were just, there was a once car place for it. No, it's really, most of them were statements, not questions.

Yeah, that's kinda what I had as well. Any discussion to this? So I'll share a few thoughts. I think fundamentally, if we're going to change city ordinances, I think fundamentally we have to have a public hearing to do that. And this did not have a public hearing. And to me, that's a glaring omission. I know when the packets, I think there were two meetings where they discussed this at the city council, that the packets contained incorrect information and did not contain the discussions that the planning commission had on that. And I feel like that's a fundamental flaw As a planning commission, we have addressed this issue through ADUs, through in-home businesses, through RV parking. We came up with the Hammerhead thing. This has been discussed a lot. And yes, it's a problem. People own more cars and things like that, but there's never been a solution that we've found yet as a planning commission that addresses these things. And when we talk about safety, there's safety of kids. When you have an RV parked very close to the sidewalk with a trailer hitch there where kids can hit it when they come by, or there's RVs on both sides of houses and people can't see when they get out of their driveways, those are problems. When there's not a fire break between houses because there's items and vehicles and RVs next to that. We brought in the assistant fire chief. and discuss those things. Those are all things that we discussed as a planning commission. And then the council, of course, can make their decisions. But I think to fundamentally negate or really not consider the things that the Planning Commission does, I think it's a fundamental flaw. And so that's why I wanted to bring this back. As you can see from the packet, this is an issue we have talked about a whole lot. And if the Council does something different, decides to keep this the way that it is currently, that's their prerogative. That's what the Council does. We're a recommending body. But to have bypassed the Planning Commission, I think, is fundamentally wrong and flawed so that's kind of where I'm coming from on this and you know planning commissioners you know we can we can approve this or reject the changes this were but at least now it's had a public hearing and I think it can properly go before the council for their action.

I want to point out that the 19 times we've talked about it has not been specifically to address the additional parking. It's about parking options in the city. So to say that it's an important thing, because we've talked about it 19 times, we've talked about parking considerations 19 times, but not necessarily the safety and concerns that we have for the additional driveways on property and the safety that it creates there, everything that Ryan just said. So I don't want everybody to be deceived by the 19 as it's a serious thing because we've talked about it 19 times. No, we've talked about parking consideration 19 times. We've talked about this issue a handful of times. And because we couldn't come up with a safe, reasonable recommendation, we didn't make one. And council took that upon themselves to do it. And I agree with Ryan that everything we had talked about in all of our meetings seemed like it didn't it just wasn't taken in consideration and we are seven people who say this doesn't make sense that this isn't safe for a lot of reasons we brought in you know the authorities to come in and talk about it and we all outlined it and we all agreed and then to be summarily almost dismissed for our thoughts and our feelings and the things that we have I had thought and the consideration we put into this, it's insulting, honestly, that it wasn't considered and it wasn't expressed at the time that this was made. So I feel like we just need to clarify that, no, it wasn't 19 times. It wasn't a serious issue about this particular one that we are wanting to reverse. Does that make sense? Okay.

Any other discussion to it yeah um i've lived in Roy off and on for a lot of years. I lived in halvern when we had dirt roads. So the city is very different from location to location and and my feeling is. You can't make one rule to cover the whole city, I think we need to divide it up. City Council Chambers, make the rules that fit the particular neighborhoods. You know. City Council Chambers, There are places where putting in three driveways is just the wrong thing. City Council Chambers, You know, they may have enough land to do that, but it's not necessary, but we also have parts in the city for the lots are so small. that there's only room for two cars and with third, you can't park it on the street in the winter, you gotta make some kind of an accommodation for that because you have mom and dad's cars and then you got teenage cars and if you got two teenagers that are driving, that's four cars if they're rich enough to afford a fourth one. I think we really maybe should break it down in sections of the city and make it a smart decision based on the size of the lots and the layout of that particular neighborhood area, rather than try and make one grand rule to fit everything. Because one size does not fit all. I don't think Dan Tanner could fit in my shirt. and his shirt would drown me. And it's not that he's big, he's just muscular. And I'm not. So that's my take on it, is I live in an area where there's cars on the street, and wintertime comes, there's cars on the lawn, and they turn into mud puddles. There needs to be something for each different neighborhood. just small changes for this zone and this zone and that zone. Not our zones, but just a zone as in specific proximity in the city.

I think just for clarity, Steve, on the parking during, it's not necessarily winter parking, it's parking during a snow event. Correct. That you can't be on the street for the purpose of allowing the plows to clear the street. So you take it off there temporarily until they plow it. Then you can put it back on. And that's the goal of the winter or the snow event parking restriction is we just want to safely clear the streets. So to say they can't park during winter is not necessarily a fact. The fact is they need to move it so they can clear the streets and then they can come back again.

And you know, 4800, nobody can park on the street on 4800, summer or winter. And we have several of those kind of streets and we have what is it? 2250 2225 you put cars on both sides and only one car can go No, that's my take on this whole thing is it's a can of worms I

That's why we talk about it so much. It's not an easy solution for four hands.

Well, and Dave, to your point, you know, you start fragmenting things and start separating, it becomes a nightmare to enforce. Well, yeah. It becomes a real nightmare to enforce, and then also a nightmare to regulate as far as who can apply and the arguments thereof. And so, you know, it's a great option.

yeah and there would be a lot of work that would to figure it out to work and that would have to be i mean that's a staff discussion honestly so we've got to recall the parking ordinance as mr higgs had pointed out the driveway is to gain legal act to where your legal access is right so most people have a two-car garage and how many park in the garage That's where your two-car parking is supposed to be, and then the driveway becomes a secondary, so two additional cars. Then if you park on the side of where the driveway is, you can do tandem two additional cars. You're already at six before you even get to the backyard. The problem with today's society is we fill the garage up with all our stuff, And then now we're missing two cars in the scenario. So it becomes hard. And I'm guilty of that. I get half my garage is full. My wife's car park's in there. Mine does not.

One time at my house, I've got a big garage, three cars and a motorcycle, and outside the garage were three cars.

So trying to write something to... is for everybody, it is hard, especially if you want to divide the city up. Because even on our 1-8 zone, east of the railroad tracks is going to be different than west of the railroad tracks because it's just when they were built.

Yeah, and that's my point is when they were built.

It would be hard to write a code like that. Even if it's, you know, council stays with what was adopted in December or it changes to what this is. It ain't going to fix everybody, every situation, but it comes down to...

What does the city want to look like but in some of the things we have when we look at ad use we made exceptions for adu parking And and difficulty of turning around we made exceptions for turnaround driveways or hammerheads. So we we've made accommodations for circumstances that were stated um, but it still falls back to do we Have more stuff than you have room to park it um, and so um And everybody can live the life the way they want, but we also have to be responsible and be good citizens and make sure that we ensure the safety of our community. And I believe that's what we're wanting to do is put the safety back in our community by not allowing this additional driveway on the opposite side of where their drive is creating all those line of sight fire barrier issues we've talked about.

Okay, any other thoughts? If not, we can call the question. One comment before we entertain a motion, though. I think, Steve, you made a good point, and I can't make motions, and so that's why I bring this up here, is access to a legal parking space I think would be good language to include in there. I think that's a positive addition because that's really what we're trying to accomplish.

Right.

So with that, any further discussion or a motion is in order.

Motion to forward a positive recommendation to the city council regarding the proposed amendments to title 10 zoning regulations, amending chapter 10, general property development standards. Paragraph 32, parking residential zones. Chapter 19, off-street parking and loading. Paragraph 2, general provisions 8A4. Do you want to include the? With recommendations as discussed by the commission. And is that meaning the legal part, access to legal parking spaces?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Just wanna make sure we're clear in the motion. So it's a motion for a favorable recommendation with access to legal parking space added into that. Okay, we have a motion, is there a second? Second. Second, and this will be a roll call vote.

Commissioner Young?

Aye.

Commissioner Bailey? Aye. Commissioner Felt? Aye. Commissioner Calley? Aye. Commissioner Bills?

Aye.

Commissioner Tanner? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. It passes or unanimous? Can't say it passes because we don't pass things.

We recommend.

Passes out with a favorable recommendation. I'll help you out there, Steve.

Thanks. So we'll now move on to agenda item number five, which is also a public hearing to consider amending title 10, zoning regulations, amending chapter 31, definitions, adding garage and yard cells.

So as you remember, this was brought up by our code enforcement officer. He had some concerns with a property or two that as soon as the weather becomes good, tables come out in the front yard, bunch of stuff comes out on those tables, and it doesn't ever come down until the weather starts getting bad. Like most garage sales, as you sell stuff, it doesn't replenish, it doesn't grow bigger, but some reason or somehow, This garage sale stays open for four or five months and never decreases in size. The gentleman or the property owner say, well, it's not a business. It's just a garage sale. So he was looking for ways to help him negate some of the concerns that come through with citizens asking for it to be cleaned up. So him and the assistant city attorney kind of came up with this idea. Staff researched other cities surrounding us, and we've had a few discussions on those. So what the planning commission has kind of come to conclusion is, similar to what Clinton City had, allowing for up to eight days or three consecutive weekends, giving it a time frame, and kind of defining what a garage sale is. That way, you're not having one five, six months, and then debating in court, is this a business or is this not a business? Is this junk and debris or is it not? It kind of follows the aspect. The reason why business as a home-based business would come into play is the home-based business cannot be outside. It has to be 100% inside the home. So as soon as we go outside and start selling, it can't be a home-based business. And without a definition of a garage sale or yard sale, he felt that this was important enough to have in there so it would help him.

Well, plus doesn't a home-based business have to have a license?

Yes, a home-based business has to have a license. across cells overnight.

And I really appreciated Brock bringing this to our attention to kind of look at just trying to find a good way to help him do his job and still allow flexibility for residents to have yard cells. I think it's always kind of a fun neighborhood kind of a thing and we definitely didn't want to really restrict that or stop that and you know I think this language mean there's a lot of different directions we could have could have gone with this but i did appreciate brock and bringing that forward so any questions or discussions for steve so staff would recommend sending a favorable recommendation up to the council okay thank you um emotions in order for a public hearing

I'll make a motion to open the public hearing to consider the amendments to Title 10 zoning regulations.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we are now in public hearing and same rules. I think everybody heard that the first time, so no need to repeat that. But the time is now yours to come forward and please state your name for the record and share your thoughts with us.

I'll get up again. Tim Higgs, a Roy resident. Again, I'm hoping just something that was perhaps an overlook. And I really don't know necessarily why The ordinance needs to specify exactly where on the property a resident can sell on a garage sale. But point number two on the proposed verbiage says driveway, carport, front porch, occasionally the interior of the house. Well, it would, to me, many properties in Roy, the best shade in the whole property is in the backyard. And the side yards and if we're going to specify exactly where it's allowed or where it's common to do it. I would suggest having both backyard and side yard included in where they can have them. The other thing I wanted to just mention in general. In years past I've come to both the council and the planning meetings and in this meeting there was a forum for public comment and I see that that's been taken and I would ask and suggest that there be at some point in the agenda an area for public comment. In addition to the specific ordinances or open forums that you would have for public, there would, I would hope to be an area for public, but The only other offering I have for the body tonight deals with an email that I sent to the entire body over the weekend. As it related to this particular topic? Yeah, that's the only other thing I would suggest is I never received response to say it was received.

If it's not related to this, then we can't take comments. Apparently it was received.

Thank you, that's all I have. Thank you.

Nancy Inman, I live in Roy.

So the problem I have with this is you've got one bad actor that's creating a problem in a neighborhood. And there's other codes and ordinances and things that you can use to stop this guy from doing what he's doing. But passing another ordinance limiting the rights of the other 15,000 property owners in Roy, just because you have one bad actor, I have a problem with. So it's like a shotgun blast. You've got 99% of your citizens who are doing nothing wrong. You've got one that's causing a problem. So you're gonna pass an ordinance that affects everybody. And I think we have enough ordinances already. And who's gonna enforce it? You're gonna hire another code and take notes and tell how many people have yard sales in a calendar year, really? I think we're enough of a nanny state. We don't need any more of this kind of crap. Thank you.

Thank you.

Shelly Polston, I live in Roy. I have to agree with Nancy. I think micromanaging people on their own property when their property belongs to them and not the government or anyone else. It's theirs and it's protected. Telling people what to do on their property is a violation of their rights. And I'm not a big fan of micromanaging everyone. Address the one issue you have, deal with it. Leave the rest of the people alone. And I didn't say anything in the first hearing, but that applies to what people put in their yards. So it's their property, they're protected, they should be able to do what they want. And that's all I have to say about that. You have only one other thing, an administrative item.

We can only, in the public hearing, it's only related to the garage sale proposed changed ordinance here.

Why?

Because that's the rules. Great. The public hearing is on this, not the administrative item.

Okay, gotcha.

Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak to this?

Motion to go out of public hearing.

Motion, we have a second. Second. Second, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we are now out of public hearing.

Most everything was more of a comment. The one about public comment in years past, the Planning Commission, at least in the 12 years that I've worked here, that has not been on the agenda, just a public open for comments. So I mean, I could research it even farther back, but I don't think it's ever been on the Planning Commission. It's been on city councils.

And there was the question about the side yard and backyard. And that, yeah.

I mean, you can take out number two. I don't, you know.

Well, but the language says typically. That doesn't mean exclusively. Just typically. So it's just a typically it's here. It doesn't mean it can't be anywhere else. So the language I don't know is uninclusive. So this is typically.

And again, I'd be fine if we added in the language for side yard and backyard.

If we want to be that specific, put it in, yeah. I have no issue with that.

Yeah, because I agree it probably does cover it, but we might as well, if we're doing something, I would rather have it just be as inclusive as possible on that now.

And I just want to address the question or comment that, you know, one person, you know, we have ordinances already in place that address the one guy. That's the whole reason we're having this conversation, because the code enforcement official doesn't have anything in the code to enforce it. And what essentially we're having is people who are running a business, which is essentially what it is of running a business without a license. People who want to run a business out of their home have the right to do that, but they have to do it legally, and that's through a license. And if the hurdle is getting a license, well, if I don't have to get a license to run a business, why should I get a license? I can just run my business. And how does a code enforcement officer deal with that? Well, there's nothing in the ordinance that gives him any teeth to be able to deal with that. So it's unfair to people who are trying to do things constitutionally and legally by buying a license and doing it the proper way. Why would they do that if they can just do it without?

Any other thoughts? I know motion's in order if we're done with comments here.

I motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendments to Title 10 zoning regulations amending Chapter 31 definitions adding garage and yard sales with adding side and backyards to the second bullet point. Or removing restriction.

Or the language completely, right? Yeah, or removing. Do you want to go with?

Adding is fine.

Do we have a motion? Second. And a second. And again, this is a call.

Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Tanner? Aye. Commissioner Bills? Aye. Commissioner Kelly? Aye. Commissioner Felt? Aye. Commissioner Bailey? Aye. Commissioner Young?

Aye.

Right, we will move on to the administrative items. Item number six is a request for site plan and architectural approval for Price Townhomes located approximately 2748 West, 5600 South. And is the applicant here? If the applicant would please come forward. Go ahead and tell us your name and where you live and then present your project to us here.

Yeah, good evening. Pat Burns. I live in North Ogden. I own a business here in Roy. But yeah, we are submitting for the site plan and architectural approval for Apriska Town Homes just off of, right behind where the rail trail goes and it's got the bridge going over 5600 so it's right behind that. We've spent a lot of time working with Steve really well. He's been great to work with. We think that It's a good design and it'll look really good in the area and we're pretty happy about it and excited and love to get some comments and feedback on it. Pretty simple, I think. But yeah, if anything I could answer and appreciate your time. Okay, thank you. Any questions?

All right, we may call you back up here, but we'll turn it over to Steve. Oh, you have a question, okay.

Okay, I'm looking at the diagram. It exits on the street thing, exits on 2700 West. Yes, sir. Okay. There is a curb cut on 5600 South also. If you rearrange the building that's sitting in front of that and attaching part of it to be the Northwest building, you could open up a second inlet outlet using that other curb cut. Because during certain times of the day, getting in and out on 2700, may be a little bit congested. Or adding the second one from 5600 for input output might facilitate that neighborhood a little bit better.

I would love to do that. That's a UDOT road, and that's a big, big no-no. Even if the curb cut is there, they would not let me access that. Okay.

They put the curb cut in.

Great comment. There used to be a house. I'm just wondering why it's there. There used to be a house there, and I believe that was accessed at that one time. Yeah, UDOT bought that house, and then they would. They probably bought it to exclude us having a curb cut there. But I agree. If we could do that, that would be great.

I would love to do that. Just a little bit of arranging of a couple of buildings. You got an in and an out.

Unfortunately, in development, UDOT's like God. Okay. That answers that. I'm new at this, by the way. Great comment, though. You're exactly right. We would love to do something like that, but pretty impossible.

Okay.

Okay, thank you. Okay. Steve.

Just as mentioned, this is a request for some townhomes. They're at the northwest corner, 56 and 27. Property kind of highlighted there. The layout, there's really only a couple of comments that would be of concern, and I've already spoken with the engineer to get me documentation it's the size of the property there's some things that don't correlate on the exact square footage which would either allow 19 or 18 units so the engineer is gonna give me a true description layout so it comes out exactly what it's supposed to be The reason why I say there's differences, the applicant has a certain thing, the engineer has a certain thing, and the county has something different. So it's like, which one is it? So we're going to get that down. But if it's 18, I don't think the layout will change. If it's 19, it's here what you've got. So the architecture-wise, you've got a few comments. Again, nothing's going to change the layout or design of the building. So staff would recommend approval.

OK. Any questions for Steve?

I do, Steve. In the engineering portion, it talks about traffic access. I mean, that was the first thing that caught my eye when I saw this was that that left-hand turn into the subdivision off 27, just off of 56, and that it's probably going to share the middle lane. Um, and, and if there are too many cars in that lane waiting for the light, people are wanting to turn to go into it. Does that create, or one person wanted to get in there and bottlenecks that whole intersection, which is a busy intersection. And so I look at the concerns and it says a traffic study is needed to support access to location and determine restrictions on traffic movements. Um, have we seen that traffic study?

No, not yet.

Okay. I would be less inclined to even move forward with any approvals on this until we see that traffic spread to see if it's feasible, honestly.

Feasible to where it's located or feasible to get anything in and out?

As far as the traffic flow. I mean, if the traffic flow's not going to work, then they've got to figure out a different traffic pattern, right?

Well, worst case scenario, it's going to be right in, right out. I'd have to be heading south to get in the project and only head south to get out. But, I mean, yeah, the traffic study is required, so it would be something the engineer will have to look at, and I can definitely bring it back to you. The concern I have is if all of a sudden we restrict all access to this property, we're buying it.

No, if there's a traffic pattern that can be approved, then I have no objection for that. So, I mean, townhomes are what's in the area anyway, so it's not like we're changing any type of – of use we've got town homes surrounding this and so it makes sense that it's a practical use for it um and because of it is that rewidening road where the traffic flows better than in some of the roads in the city i don't see an issue with um The development, for me, the big hang-up is that.

I can bring back the traffic study when it comes out, if you'd like.

They have to have a legal access to the property. This is the only place for it.

I'd love it if you gave them the access. That was the point of my question. But as Pat Burns said, it'd have to be 350 feet away from the intersection. And this property isn't that deep or wide.

So I'm just concerned about that traffic issue.

As is our engineer.

Does this fit with zoning in that area?

Does this fit what?

With the zoning in that area already? Good. I notice there's some farther down, some across the street, some up by the bridge. So I figured it would, but just want to make sure.

Yeah, it's an administrative, so it meets the code.

Any other discussion to it?

There was an email that came out.

What about it?

That a resident sent us to address.

You can address it if you'd like.

That wasn't in relation to this project, though, was it? Or was this...

I...

Myself and Mr. Wilson, the city attorney, have no concerns what was brought up.

I mean, if there's no issue, then there's nothing to really discuss. I just wanted to make sure.

And I don't think that email was sent to the whole planning commission either, at least originally. But yeah, the city attorney, this is an administrative item.

Right. So let's clarify that.

To what?

Does it meet the code or not? No.

It does.

Any further discussion? Okay, a couple of motions are in order. Actually, just one motion on this one. No, there's two. So, two.

Well, I personally would like to table until we see the traffic study.

But that's my opinion.

Make a motion.

I make a motion that we table the site plan and architecture review until we're able to see a traffic study.

Do we have a motion to table? Is there a second? Motion to approve the site plan. So there isn't a second on that. So we'll go back to where a different motion. I just wanted to clarify that point. I just figured there wasn't a second. I can make a motion.

Motion to approve the site plan review with conditions that all current and future DRC review comments are complied with, along with any conditions as stated in the staff report during this meeting or during this meeting.

Ending. I'll second.

Do we have a motion and a second for the site plan? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

All right. Well, nay. Commissioner Kanner. All right. Second motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the architectural review with the conditions that all current and future DRC review comments are complied with along with any conditions as stated in the staff report or during this meeting.

second we have a motion and a second for the architecture um all in favor aye aye any opposed okay and you were again i have no issues with the architecture you know i just wanted to be clear i'm fine with the architecture yes okay so the architecture passes unanimously all right we will move on to agenda item uh number seven which is commissioner's minute

I noticed that KFC is painted white. Is there someone new going in there that asked for a business license?

That's a great question. Oh, you don't know either? No.

That's crazy.

We drove by and it was painted white. And it's like, whoa.

Us too. We were avoiding the traffic. I'm like, this is fun.

So we've contacted the property owner. So we're hopeful they call us back.

Awesome.

I just wondered. Better than painted white than those rumbles.

And are we having a work session this month?

Yes, discuss the detached ADUs.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else from any of the commissioners? Okay, we'll move on to agenda item number eight, staff update.

not really much to update and we have a open position applications are closed next week so we're still open I think we have four or five already from from individuals so if you know people that would like have them apply send that to me then we can get get that going we will have a Work session this month, again, discuss the detached ADUs. There will not be a meeting the second week of August. That's the council's truth and taxation meeting. So we've been asked not, well, can't say we've been asked. We've been told we can't have a meeting that night by state. So we won't have that. We may have one work session in the end of August, but I don't think if this month goes well, then we won't have one. That's all I got. Oh, Agora, or now it's called Park 42 or something like that, the one that's next to KFC, has just pulled their permit, so they're going vertical. So they've got all the horizontal stuff in, so you'll start seeing that go up.

Okay, last item on the agenda. Motion's in order. Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion to adjourn with a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are now adjourned.

Who seconded it?

I did.