Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

don't chew ice because that's all

Thank you.

Is there anything you shouldn't be saying?

Notice who he looked at when he said that. You ready, Steve? All right, we will call to order our Planning Commission meeting for September 8th, 2026 for Roy, Utah. And we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Reed.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United

Thank you. We'll begin by declaring any conflicts. Do any of the commissioners have any conflicts they need to declare?

I have a clarification. One of the petitioners for the quick clean was David Young. That is not me. And as far as I know, I am not related to him.

OK. And then typically, if we have a financial interest and there's, is there a financial interest there at all?

There is no financial there.

All right, thank you for that clarification. Probably quite a few David Youngs in this world. At least seven. Common name. Seeing no conflicts, we will move on to agenda item number two, which is approval of the July 14, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

I do have a few amendments to be made. On line 216, it states that Commissioner Bills moved to approve the site plan. That was not correct, but I'm not sure which commissioner did make that motion. On line 217, it states Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion. That's not correct. It was Commissioner Bills that seconded that motion. I think I made the motion. So 216 would have been you?

I believe so. OK.

Thank you. On line 221, it states Commissioner Reed moved to approve the architectural review. I believe that was Commissioner Bills. And then on line 222, it states that I, Commissioner Graf, seconded the motion, but I was not in attendance that evening, and I'm not sure who seconded that motion. I went through the recording but couldn't quite identify the voice. Those are all of my notes. Thank you.

So Steve, do you want us to hold that or just make the amendments as appropriate? Any other comments or motion is in order.

Motion to approve July 14, 2026 meeting minutes with the amendments.

Seconded.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, those minutes are approved. Next we have, excuse me, I have a little bit of a cold, so if my voice goes out a little bit, bear with me. Next we have a public hearing, and this is to consider the following request for property located at approximately 3934 and 3960 West, 5500 South. And these requests are to amend the general plan, future land use map from single family residential to multifamily residential, amend the zoning map from R18, single family residential, to R4, multifamily residential. And if the applicants are here, if they would please come forward.

May I make a note or a clarification? On this request, under Section B, it dates from the R-1-8 single-family residence to R-3. That is the only point. I think it's just a typo. It said R-3 there. Everywhere else, it's R-4.

The agenda, the staff recommendation, and everything that went out is R-4.

Thank you. Okay, go ahead, if you'll please state your name, and then tell us which city you live in, and then tell us about why you want to rezone this property.

Okay, my name's James Openshaw, and I live at 3066 West, 4600 South and Roy. This property that's located there belongs to my mom and dad, which have now passed on, and Kathy Bennion, and this is a representative for Kathy Bennion, it's her son that's here. He'll get up, if you need him to get up now, he will, or he'll wait till after I'm done.

He's fine, however you want to present that.

Okay, so our parents have just, my mom just recently passed away, and we've had this property in our family now for 56 years. My mom and dad bought it back in 1970, and we had all intentions to keep it the way it was, the five acres that we had at the time, You can't see it all here, but in the yellow part there, it went clear on back to five acres, and then there was another 10 acre parcel next to it that my uncle had. But as time went on and houses were starting to move in around us, there was developers that come in and tried to buy the property from my dad. They was able to get my uncle to sell his 10 acres, which went clear back to that second road back there. and he sold his part, and then they wanted my dad to sell his, and my dad says, no, I'm not gonna sell mine, I wanna keep my acreage. We've had horses, cows, pigs, race horses, we've had all kinds of different animals on that property throughout the 56 years that we've lived there, well, have had the property. So they finally come to an agreement with my dad that they would go ahead and trade him some property. So he ended up trading the back half back there for the front half there. And we ended up with roughly about three acres there that goes just to the first road. And so they were able to have the access to come in and do the zoning of the R1-8s. So they come in and they did that. And then they wanted to buy some more from him. And he says, no, we're just going to hang on to that. We don't want to get rid of it. So meanwhile, when they come in and done some more housing in there and they put that road in there, we went ahead as a family and decided, well, we want to put the the utilities and everything in that road. So if we was gonna do anything with them lots in the future, that there wouldn't be such an impact on a new road and stuff. I worked for the city of Roy for 28 years and in the city government for 32. So we thought that'd be the best way to go about doing that. So we did that and then about, Ten years ago, we decided to sell seven lots back there, right just behind the yellow part there. And the Benyans We got with them, too, and right here, this is what we sold about eight years ago. We sold these lots. We developed them and then sold them. We asked the Bennions if they wanted to go on board with us at that time because they had this property, the same thing. They had an oversized lot in Roy that could no longer have any animals. So they thought that their best interest and ours was, OK, we'll go ahead and we'll sell these. We had seven and they had three lots. So we went ahead and sold those seven lots. And when we was laying those lots out, we thought, well, what we'll do is we'll make them lots a little bit bigger. So we come in to give them a little bit more room in their backyards and stuff to make them a little bit more feasible for people to want to buy and stuff. So when we did that, at one time, when we did all this in the future, we had a cul-de-sac coming into that lot there that's all around the yellow part. And we was going to put like five or six more homes in there. When we added them other ones, it made it almost a little bit too small to do the R18. So we thought, well, maybe what we can do is we'll, because there's an existing house there, and the Bennions have an existing house. And on the west side, on that side of the map, the Bennions got some property that go all the way back. Makes for their big lot. They had plans to sell that lot. And we had plans to develop three lots on the east side of there to make them R18s. Well, the state come in, and they told us that you guys, I wanted an access for the property there so I could get in and out and do whatever I needed to do. because they got a lot of maintenance and pull out trailers and do different things in there. And we asked the state and he says, no, we're going to give you the one access you got right now. And they wanted to change that access. They wanted to have that access to that home line up with that road, which makes sense, but it doesn't make sense for the home that's there. So talking with the engineers in Royce City, we was able to get the the driveway put in, and the Bennions were able to get their driveway put in next to ours with the separation of the curb where it ramps up. So at that time, we was getting ready to do the lots there on the east and on the west side, and they told us that they would not give us access to another access into that property. So we was stuck with one we had. So at that time, it put a hardship on us. Here we are. We're orphans now, is what my brother says. We've lost our parents. And we've got this piece of property that nobody's living in. We all got our own homes and our own places, and we want to get rid of it. And we don't want to just try to sell it as an R18, because it's no good for horse property. It's really an oversized lot for an R18. I don't know what somebody would do with it, but what I've seen in the future And I mean, in the past is people that's got lots like that, they bring in a lot of things, and you're going to get hoarders to move into places like that. And before long, it ends up being a junkyard. So we're coming before you today asking you that with the hardship that we have been put upon us from the state of Utah, we would like to rezone both of these properties here and do them together as an R4 that would make it for multi-living. So if we could sell it to whoever, a developer or whoever we sell it to, we can sell it as an R4 property and then they can come in there and they can put the multi-living in there. Then they could line the road up with the road that's across the street. and that would only be the one access, so right now there's two accesses there, and if we was to sell it, then there would only be the one access where they would go in and out for the multi-living houses, I mean not houses, but fourplexes that would be in there for affordable living. We really think it'd be a good idea to bring something like this to the community. There's not a whole lot, down in that part of that area of Roy. And things are getting tougher and tougher every year. And I think if we was able to redo that as an R4 and come in and do that, that maybe we might be able to have some more affordable living so some of these young kids that are first getting married can come in and have a place to live. We're not developers. We're just regular people. And we're just trying to get the best bang for our buck. on this property. So we've had it for 56 years. I've been to these kind of meetings before. I kind of have a good idea what happened. But as of right now, we're asking for your permission to move on to council and approve this so we can move on and get rid of this piece of property that's going to kind of be a hindrance to us. So do you have anything to say?

Yeah, my name is Jason Harrison. I live at 736 Healy in Ogden, Utah. I'm representing my mother, Kathy Benyon, who resides at 3960 West 5500 South here in Roy. My parents have lived on this property for over 30 years now and have loved the place that they called home. My stepfather, Richard, passed away in 2018, and my mother is the only occupant with my sister, on the current property and has asked me to represent her tonight as her health does not allow her to be able to come out. It's a big piece of property with only one access point now. We're pretty limited in what we can do. We had hoped to be able to downsize the property and perhaps sell off the portion on the west side of the house to limit some of the upkeep that needs to take place. with only the one access point, that makes that next to impossible. It's a big lot, but we don't have many options for what we can do with it in the future. Jim here was kind enough to inform us of their desires with their property. Mother was in agreeance that She wanted to go in with him on this to expand our options as we look to kind of take care of her in the future and what may come from that. So we fully support this proposal and hope that you'll consider that.

Is that the end of your presentation?

Yeah, I don't want to talk anymore. I'll answer questions.

Yeah, we may have a few questions for you. So with this proposal, is your intent to remove the two homes, Bonnie and Kathy's homes, from the property?

Yeah, eventually. I've had some developers approach me, and they want to just buy it. And I thought, well, why don't we take the first step? But they have mentioned removing both homes.

Okay. And you mentioned there's the one point of access that UDOT has indicated that they'll keep, and that's the joint area where the driveway, the current reset. Yeah.

They want to line it up with the road that's across. I think it's 3925 is what the road is across the street there. Okay. You can see it's on, it's almost three quarters of the way of the property, but it would be a good access for that multi-living. And then it would eliminate the other two accesses. But like I said, they wanted us to move our driveway to that so it lined up so it wouldn't be entering the traffic zone from this side, and then down the road, 50 or 100 feet, there's another one. And then another 10 feet, there's another one with the banyan. So that's our whole thing is that it would be best to have it as an R4. that would eliminate only the other two accesses and have just one access to that property with the multi-living.

Okay, and then my last question is, have you kind of laid out, I know we're talking about a rezone, not necessarily the subdivision itself, but have you laid that out to kind of see what it would look like if it were to remain an R18?

I haven't, but I have had somebody that has gave me a picture of it and showed me kind of what they was gonna do. But it's been like eight years ago I got that picture.

So if it wasn't to be rezoned, though, have you looked at what it could – is it even possible to develop in the current zone that it is?

No, the way it is, no, not at R18. I mean, we're stuck with the one access for our property, the one access for their property. Like I said, we had plans to – put three more lots on the east side. They got plans to put one more lot on the west side. The state won't let us do it. I would imagine if we fought hard enough and went through the battle three, four, five, six years, that we may be able to get something to happen. But I'm not into developing property. I've been taking care of that place for my mom and dad for the last 10 years because they just not been able to do it. And I got my own things to take care of. And we want to get rid of it. So that's why we're trying to go down this. And I know if we just go ahead and sell it, just as a law, R18, that whoever buys it, I know somebody, a developer, is going to jump on it. And then they're going to be in here trying to reap the benefit of it. So we're just trying to be a little proactive on our behalf to get the benefit if it is approved of our form.

OK. Any questions from any of the other commissioners? Thank you, maybe we'll have some more questions afterward and so be ready, but thank you.

Yeah, I will be. Okay, thank you.

Steve.

As mentioned, this is a request to change the general plan from single family to multifamily and from R18 to R4 zoning. The property here on 5600 South, really the only access is to 55. Sorry, 56, 55 is all kind of the same. But it'd only have access to 55, not into the neighborhood in the north of them. As mentioned, it's about 3 and 1 half acres-ish, maybe a little bit more in total. So looking at the future land, the general plan future land use map on the left there, you can see it's single family, and then on the right is the zoning map. There is R4 on the parcel to the south. It was rezoned a couple, I think a year and a half ago to R4. It's at... kind of the vacant parcel there with the vacant barn and house. So that's their request is just to rezone at R4. So Planning Commission would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation. Any questions?

Could we just get a quick review of what the R4 zoning entails?

As in what it allows? Multifamily. 12 units an acre. It could be town homes, apartments. It could be single family homes on 6,000 square foot lot. Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I was trying to find that in our code and was not able to locate that exact breakdown. So I appreciate it. No problem.

Any other questions for Steve? Okay, time for a motion to go into a public hearing.

I'll make a motion to move into public hearing.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous. So we're now in public hearing. So what we'll do is we'll invite members from the public to come forward. Please state your name and the city in which you live. And then just a couple of ground rules that we have. You'll be given three minutes each to speak, which is almost a full page of notes. So it actually is quite a bit of time, even though it doesn't sound like much. When I raise my hand, that means you have about 15 seconds left to wrap up. Then during the public hearing, please refrain from clapping or cheering. Be respectful. The people who've proposed this are members of our community that do live here, so be respectful of that. And then if somebody before you has already stated what you want to say, you don't necessarily need to repeat that. You can just say, hey, I agree with this, and then tell us the new points that you would like to make. So with that, we'll go ahead and open public hearing. And you can also stack up, so if somebody's at the microphone, we can have one or two people behind them just to keep things flowing as well.

My name is Kevin Homer, and I live here in Roy. Just a clarification, I have no financial or relational conflicts to declare. There is another Kevin Homer in the area, but I'm taller and better looking than he is. I took some time to review the information in the packet. I do live just a block to the north of these lots. I thought that it was a little bit strange that there was no development agreement. We have very little information about what would be done on this land. So for me, that was a little bit of a concern, but it was not in any way big enough of a concern for me to oppose this, I just want you to know that after my review and looking at what could be done here, I think it would be of benefit to Roy, and for whatever it's worth, I would support this initiative. Thank you.

And just for the record, if you have questions, we're going to take notes, and then once the public hearing is over, we'll answer all of those at the same time.

Okay, my name's Ryan Parent. I live in one of the houses that was developed on the north side of that property. I have some notes just to follow along. I get a little nervous in settings like this and just have a few questions and items I'd like to address. One item I'd like to address is that in the document, it stated that the property is looking at being developed into multifamily because that is needed in the city. for moderate income housing My question to that is that More density doesn't necessarily mean moderate income housing and my concern with this development and changing this at this point without a development plan or developer online is It seems a little limiting to the guardrails that are put in place to achieve that Just because you're allowing that much density in this area doesn't mean the developer is going to come in and create something that's going to be affordable. It doesn't mean it's going to be moderate income housing. It means that the developer is going to capitalize the best they can on the property and do what's in their best interest with the property. I completely support their understanding and wanting to sell this property and gain from it the best they can. But I'm kind of concerned and don't understand why there's this happening at this point and what would be the guardrails to help protect later on what that development looks like down the road. It was also stated that 5500 South is an arterial road, and this type of housing seems fitting against that scenario. I don't disagree that at some point in time it does. I feel like right now it doesn't necessarily. Traffic on that road is pretty bad. I understand this will be a process and take some time to be developed, but that side of things will as well. And it goes from two lanes down to, or from four lanes down to two. It's congested. Things back up when the school's in session at Freedom Elementary. Adding more density to this area, it doesn't seem like it's well thought out and well planned fully. I don't want to disparage development and density. I think that's needed, but I just don't see how this parcel really fits fully within that. Another thing I wanted to address is in the staffing document, it said me as a citizen that lives next to this property is going to come and say the usual, I don't like change. I disagree with that characterization. It's not that I don't want change, it's that I want thoughtful change. It's that I want change that allows what we're going towards. And I just don't see at this point where this makes sense and gains us that.

15 seconds.

So yeah, that's just what I wanted to voice my opinion on and ask those few questions. Like, what are the guardrails? What are the guardrails for those of us that live around it? We're transitioning from higher density, if this happens, into a neighborhood around it that's lower, that single family. What are those guardrails to help us to understand privacy, traffic flow, stormwater management, and all those things? Thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Daniel Evans. I am Lot 6, James Place. So my wife and baby and I are actually very grateful for your choice early on. That's been a God-given blessing to us to be able to live here in Roy. We never thought we'd end up around here. I'm not going to take my full three minutes because Ryan said everything I wanted to say. It's just there's not a thing I want to do to prevent folks from getting into a home and owning a home. So many engineers I work with are commuting from Tremont because they can't find something affordable closer to Hill Air Force Base. So it's kind of crazy. It needs help. And so my chief concerns are the same, is how do we protect about how this would be developed at a future point? What other guardrails are in place between rezoning now and what a developer may do with it? Also, is there anything we can do to actually make sure that that goes towards facilitating affordable home ownership? Of these properties that border, I think at least three I know of are rentals now. That's not facilitating affordable home ownership. These people are paying $2,400 a month rent. that's going the wrong direction and um and then a small comment i actually did agree with again with ryan the comment that says we'll come and we'll complain because it's what we know and that's what we're used to um that kind of irked me too i don't like being talked about that way we need more affordable housing i'm used to a tenth of an acre i moved to roy so i could have a third of an acre and some privacy. So yeah, how do we protect it going forward? If not now, when? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak to this one? I want to make sure everybody has a chance, so if you do want to, come on up.

I'm short, hang on. Okay, there we go. My name is Mandy Openshaw. I live at 3066 West, 4600 South. This is my mother-in-law and my father-in-law's home that they lived in. It is a beautiful property. And the folks that have come up today, tonight to give their concern, My father-in-law sold that property so they could have those homes, okay? So it's better to have fourplexes, like three or four fourplexes. Look how many homes that provides for people. Affordable homes. And we did go through the cost and we put a big fence along the whole back so all those people that got to build because of my father-in-law selling those lots, we put a fence up, it's private, it's private. It's as private as that road can get. It is a heavy road, it is a direct shot to Hillfield, and I think it's a wonderful thing for Roy to really consider, because if we could put four or five fourplexes, that's a lot of homes, that's a lot of people we're housing, low income homing. Other than that, go take a look at it, it's gorgeous. Somebody would be very happy to land in that area. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, a motion is in order.

Motion to go out of public hearing.

have a motion do we have a second second and a second all in favor aye aye any opposed all right we are now out of uh public hearing steve um there's a lot of comments or questions about safeguarding the property um

The ordinance does require, if you've got multifamily abutting against single family, section 1011, can't remember the exact one. It does have two pages of what needs to be done to protect the single family homes abutting up against multifamily, whether it be townhomes, apartment building, fourplexes. If it's single family, it will kind of go away. There are things in the code that already have safeguards, anything abutting single-family residential, which this would on the west and north. South and east, it wouldn't come into play because you've got the Howard Slough right there, or no, that's Layton Canal. Never mind. And then the street. Traffic... 5,500 south, UDOTs can probably widen that in the next few years, or at least in the next 20 years, because Hooper's growing. In fact, Hooper is slated to be bigger than Roy in 20 years. So more vehicles will be coming along there. So you don't really want single family fronting against this. So it would have to be backside, like the subdivisions or the cul-de-sacs to the west. When you start talking about multifamily and affordable, yes, there's no safeguard that says that someone couldn't come in there, build, we'll just say, 36 homes, because it's about three acres or more, and make it affordable. unless the city is willing to invest money into it, saying, hey, if you make 10% of this affordable, we'll give you money to help with the infrastructure or what have you. So knowing Roy is having budgetary problems, that's not going to happen. So unless they get with the state agency to help with that, to make it affordable, kind of down to that supply and demand aspect, the more supply we have and less demand, prices go down. Right now we're kind of in that little supply, high demand, so prices go up. That's kind of how the free market would work to help lower it unless state, county, or the city are willing to invest money into the project itself. And the city can't afford that right now. Stormwater is always something that's looked at in developments, whether it's commercial, single-family, or multi-family. FEMA and the EPA strongly discourage water flowing across property lines unless it's a natural slope. If we've got a mountainside and water flows downhill, that's going to happen, but mostly flat ground. They'll have to contain the water on site and then discharge it into the storm system. So those are aspects that will come into play. But you really don't know what that's going to look like until a site plan is submitted. And by law, we can't require a site plan at this point in Juncture. As Commissioner Graff had asked, what's allowed in this zone? And it's single-family townhomes, apartments. I mean, those are the aspects of multifamily that can be built in there. So you've got to judge it based on that aspect. Why no development agreement? Probably because there's no developer at this time seeking for increase in units or smaller lots for single-family or what have you. It's just the property owner hoping to rezone it to sell. Yeah. I think that was all the questions.

It's all of them that I had, Dale.

I just wanted to throw in there, you referenced our zoning municipal code 10-11, dash nine is the exact section. And there is a note in there, section three, subsection B regarding height, speaking about this kind of a property change where maximum building height is 35 feet. Additionally, all multifamily structures of two stories or more will be reviewed with respect to the following elements. Perceived height, building mass compatibility with existing development, and it goes on. I just want to double check because my understanding of this is that if this were to be zoned R4, this would be part of those requirements. So we wouldn't be looking at higher than 35 feet.

We're not looking at- R4 only allows 35 foot tall buildings.

35. feed as the current requirement for R18 as well. So the height wouldn't change with the rezone.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify and make sure that I wasn't making an assumption here or making a decision based off of that height when it was actually going to be allowing something different.

Any other questions?

Question for Steve. The UDOT access off of 55, is there a width limit on the access? Can we do a 30-foot road access off of 55 into this property?

That's a great question you'd have to ask UDOT. That meeting probably happened years ago without the city or without me involved, so I don't know the The ins and outs, but it's pretty likely that they said it needs to match up with 3925. You're probably only going to get one if it redevelops. That would be consistent with what they've done in the past.

If it's granted as that, I mean, it's not unreasonable to believe that R18 could stay that way, that they could go in with that access road and then split it into two cul-de-sacs and just have some larger lots but still stay within the R18.

I mean, yeah, you'd have one main road going in and how it divided up.

Okay. And wouldn't need a secondary access because of its shorter use?

I don't think you're going to meet more than 30 in order to have a requirement.

Right.

And again, if the townhomes or apartments come into play, fire code can require circumvent and say, not circumvent, but put into place that the building is sprinkled or if there's no second access.

Right.

Okay.

Right?

It's up to them.

Okay. Oh, may I? So sorry. One more thing. And this kind of ties into the comments that have been made by the residents about that wording of the residents most likely want to keep things the way as they are because it's what they know and what they are used to. And just as we're going through this process and everything, there is some lack of just like clear, this is how this is going to go. And that's not necessarily like anyone's not, giving all of the information. It's more that we kind of know how it works, and sometimes we don't always remember to portray that. And so our residents, rather than being upset because something is being changed from what they're used to, there's probably a bit of that coming from not really knowing what is actually being What would that look like with this change? So real quick, just before we get into this next decision, I want to make sure that what I understand us to be deciding here is actually correct. If we were to change this to R4, then moving forward, a development agreement would only be coming through if it was going to require something that didn't match the R4 zoning.

Correct.

And if a developer came in and wanted to develop this according to the R4 zoning, then that would be coming through, similar to the administrative items on our agenda today, a request for site plan approval. That would be the step there. Correct. And so if we've got something that doesn't fit R4 zoning, we go back through the process of a development agreement.

discussing it here taking all that into account if we change this zoning a developer can come in and submit a site plan for approval at a future date okay thank you being the newbie if we do approve it as a r4 we can't guarantee that it will be duplexes or any of that other stuff because there's no site plan in place now

there likely will never be a site plan with the rezone most of the time. Sometimes they'll tell us what they want to do.

As mentioned, by law, I can't require a site plan. So you've got to think about it just logically. I haven't bought the property. I want to build on the property. A site plan can cost me $15,000, $20,000 just to ask somebody, can I change the zoning? So logically... I've got a lot of money in there with an unknown result. So being able to get the rezone and then put the money into it is generally how it goes. When you have state legislators that are developers, it's kind of how everything falls into place. But again, just money-wise, it doesn't make sense to put in 20 grand on something that may never be approved because of the zone.

And also just dictating between whether or not the property is going to be used for personal home ownership versus rental property is outside of what we are allowed to decide.

I mean, I can't even guarantee that the single family homes to the north can remain owners, owner occupants. There's no law that says I couldn't rent my house out. So I could own it and rent it. There's nothing that says that 30% or 50% have to be homeowners. There's nothing in there. So this could be all rentals, or it could be all up for sale.

Steve, is there a study that talks about, or that you've seen? Sorry, you're grinning at me. that shows if they were to develop an R18 homes and what that potential cost could be versus the multifamily when we're talking about the affordable housing Is there anything that says that the R1A would be less affordable than if we did a multifamily in this lot? Is there anything that would help people understand that when we talk about affordable, that yes, this does mean affordable because it's not, I know rents are high, but like you said, supply and demand will change that. But does it mean R18, if we keep it R18, does it mean it's going to be any better? It sounds like it would be actually less affordable under that definition.

Well, I mean, there probably is studies out there, and there's probably places like Strong Cities or other, you know, high-density type residential. Just looking at, I mean, 2016, we did a community development block grant, CDBG, to get $250,000 to help replace curb gutters, sidewalks, streets, sewer line, and water line for I think it was three-quarters of a mile. And in 2016, it cost $750,000 just to do that. And that served 20 homes. Usually, multifamily, R4, they're going to be private roads, so we the citizens aren't responsible for upkeep of that road. To replace it, the water line and sewer line will still be public. That's a minor aspect of everything. So if you have 20 homes and it costs almost a million dollars, and you have 40 homes on the same linear, if you just divide what the house per linear foot of roadway, it comes into a lot cheaper if you have more homes on there. So higher density does help with affordability. In the long run. I mean, up front, the developer still has to put the lines in, still has to put everything in. It's going to cost them a lot of money. But 20 years from now, when things start breaking or coming apart on the city aspect, if it's a private road, it's not coming from our pocket.

Thank you.

With the road access and everything and with that level of density, would it be more feasible to consider an R3 zoning for this?

There's no difference between R3 and R4 on density.

Thank you.

Tried, but it was denied.

Okay, a motion's in order. Motion to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for requests with the findings as outlined within the staff report.

For which general plan?

For, sorry, the, this is the rezone, right? There's AMB.

You gotta do the general plan first.

Sorry, I'm coming back to it. So amend the general plan. To amend the general plan, future land use map from single family residential to multifamily residential, sorry.

So I have a motion for a favorable recommendation. Do we have a second? I'll second. I have a second, this will be a roll call vote.

Okay, Commissioner Graf.

Aye.

Commissioner Bailey. Aye. Commissioner Felt. Aye. Commissioner Calley. Aye. Commissioner Tannner.

I'm going Tann, you're not here anymore.

Commissioner Tanner.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner Young. Aye. And that passes 7-0.

Yeah, second motion is in order.

Motion to amend the zoning map for the addresses at 3934 and 3960 West, 5500 South from R18 to R4, multifamily residential.

Seconded. Again, roll call vote.

Mr. Young? Aye. Mr. Reid? Aye. Mr. Tanner? Aye. Mr. Calley? Aye. Mr. Felt? Aye. Mr. Bailey? Aye. Mr. Graf?

Aye.

It's both passed unanimously. Steve, do you want to tell them the next part of the process?

I believe this is going to council next week, but I'll let you know Thursday. OK? Thank you. If not, it'll be the first October.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you and thank you everybody for your comments from the public. All right, the next item on the agenda, we'll wait just one second here. All right, the next item on the agenda is another public hearing. And this is to consider the following request for property located approximately 3426 West, 5300 South. And this is also to amend the general plan future landmass map from single family residential to mixed use commercial and to amend the zoning map from RE15 residential estates to UC urban corridor. And is the applicant here for this one? Go ahead and please come forward and state your name, what city you live in, and why you would like us to make this change.

My name is Jerry Robinson. I'm the architect on the project. I live in Sandy, Utah. And I think that this zoning change will facilitate several of the city's goals, specifically related to the land to the north, where my client is interested in developing that property. as multifamily housing, 55 and older, affordable. And this particular part, by the way, does it show on there? The multifamily I just spoke of is north of that. It's the green grassy stuff. but the subject is the yellow. And our intention is to put a pickleball court on that so that the people in the multifamily can play pickleball. We need some additional parking stalls and there's a trail around the perimeter. There will be no structures. It'll facilitate the development of the land to the north. and the remaining lot to the south is unusually large. The zone requires 15,000 square feet. After deducting this part from it, the remaining lot is over 15,000. I think it's about 15,500. So we comply with the original zoning, current zoning, CC&Rs. There will be no pedestrian or auto traffic from this parcel into the neighboring subdivision. So I don't see any direct impact. If people in the neighboring subdivision want to come here, they'll have to climb the fence or walk around. And I think this would, having this additional parking and the pickleball court will help to facilitate some of the goals of the city and of course the goals of my client.

Okay, thank you. One question for me. So you're basically going to split the parcel into, and this area would have a pickleball court and things like that. The other parcel would remain basically as is, just missing this part. Is that correct?

The house remains as is. The rear yard is still quite large. The minimum setbacks are still maintained. So it would have been a an approvable lot had it been designed this way in the beginning and then the reason is just to make this match the remaining part that will be developed in the future it's to help yes it's to match it with the urban corridor so that we can make the thing work better I have to have certain distances required for garbage trucks to turn around, fire trucks to turn around. I've met several times with the fire department, and this allows for a hammerhead that we otherwise have a difficult time creating. Could be done. It's just this facilitates the hammerhead for the fire truck. Anyway, no structures on the site. No noise except the pickleball wiffle and back and forth.

Okay, any other questions?

This triangle will be amended to the other parcel, is that correct? Over by the Ogden Clinic, is that correct?

It's the parcel directly east of the Ogden Clinic. It's a big vacant field right now. So yes, it would be amended to it with the same zone and physically attached. Yeah, I went and visited the site. That's a good site, nice and flat.

That guy's got a big backyard. It's a huge backyard.

Thank you. Yeah, if we have further questions, we'll let you know. But thank you very much. Steve.

As mentioned, this is, again, an amendment to the general plan from single-family residential to mixed-use commercial and amending the zoning map from RE15 to urban corridor. So kind of location, you got the Ogden Clinic there on the corner of 52 and 3500 West, and just the east of it is a large vacant parcel that's currently zoned, or urban corridor. So this property being zoned RE15, if it gets changed, it just kind of correlates with it. I'll show you the zoning maps here in a second. So kind of a description of what would be subdivided. Excuse me. Still meets the requirement of 15,000 square feet for the single family home to the south. As mentioned, there's no drive access or any other access to the residential roads right there. It would only be to 52 as part of the complex. the general plan calls this area to be mixed-use commercial and then the zoning map calls it to be urban corridor so this would just match the general plan with the requests so staff would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the council thanks Steve any questions so can I

pose a scenario. What if the two owners of these properties decided to do a boundary line adjustment between them and move the line? What happens to the zoning in that scenario?

The property line moves, but the zoning remains. Okay. So that's why they have to rezone this portion.

Okay.

And then it would have to develop it under that portion, under RE15, so... So by connecting it to the urban corridor, it can be developed as a larger project. I think as he mentioned, I know there was a question came up earlier in a discussion item or with one of your commissioners. This parcel is too small to put a building in because there is requirements within this urban corridor mixed use zone that certain setbacks have to be before a building can start. And then the building can only be 25 feet tall, and after a certain distance, then it can grow. They're very aware of that issue. So all the buildings will be on those two larger ones. They were just needing extra parking and some open space. So that's where this thought came in. And the property owner of the south was agreeing to kind of subdivide the land to be able to accommodate those extra things that they needed.

All right, with no further questions, a motion to go into public hearing is in order. Motion to move into public hearing.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, that means we're now in public hearing. And the same rules apply. Please state your name and address. You'll be given three minutes. No need to restate things that were said before. Just state that you agree with it. And then just remember to respect the other people in the room. So with that, go ahead and come forward if you would like to speak to this issue. And more people are welcome to stand in line for a queue if you want to.

Hi, my name is Nikki. I literally will be living right behind it. This is my house right here. This pickleball car is going to be my backyard. This is news to me. I am in shock right now. that this is going to be my backyard. I thought it was just going to be town homes, which was bad enough because I was going to lose property or lose privacy. And now I'm going to have a pickleball court in my backyard. Here's the problem that we already have because I live on 3400. It is a one strip from 56 to 5200. So many people use my street as it is to avoid the corner of Midland and 5600. And so they are constantly racing down my street as it is. Okay. 5200 South. They also come down on 5300 to get down there to avoid all that congestion. So getting on to 5200 onto Midland can be at times a nightmare, especially during rush hour. So when you have this tiny little street on 5200 and you're going to be putting all these homes, it is going to make that traffic even worse on my street. We have had to put out signs that tell people to constantly slow It is that bad, especially on Sunday because everybody's late for church. So here's the thing, though. I'm in shock. I am getting a pickleball in my backyard. It was bad enough that house before was a drug house where they were sheltering homeless people. We had to deal with the rats from all the shelters that were in that backyard and all the activity that was going on. Now I'm going to be having nonstop noise in my backyard, literally. And the surveyor even came into my yard without my permission. and put a little, this is where the property line goes. So that was as it is. But the traffic is already bad as it is because of that thoroughfare. And now I'm going to have a massive noise problem with this pickleball? I have no words. I literally just found out. I'm sorry. I'm just, this is just unbelievable to me.

Thank you. Any other comments on this one? I do have some questions. Yeah, would you please state your name and the city that you live in?

I'm Rebecca Klingenberg, and so this, the property that they're talking about going into their backyard, we're right next door. And so if we have a pickleball court that our property is up in and she is concerned about the noise, I know, Has anybody studied that, how much noise, how popular they are? And I mean, this is the first I've heard about them putting in like multiple, I guess, use housing right behind us in that field. But I figured it was zoned for something, because it's been like that for a long time. um anyway i just didn't know what kind of noise does that create how many pickleball courts are near single you know family homes is there anything like that here in roy any studies done

Emma Russell Park is pretty close.

Yeah. Have you guys had complaints about anything like that? You know, is this a pickleball court that's only to be used by those residents there? And are there certain times where they cannot use it? I mean, for me, like I... I work at 4 in the morning, and so I have to go to bed early. And so if I'm constantly hearing pop, pop, pop, which I can let you know that when all that stuff went on next door, when that house was a drug house and we could hear a lot go on, Anyway, our bedroom window would be right up, it's right up against that property and we can hear a lot. And so that's my concern is the noise and the people and the day, the time of the day. You know, what's allowed? These are questions I have, and I don't know where to look for the answers, but if you guys have some studies or anything done that's comparable here in Roy, I'd like to know.

Can you respond at some point?

Yeah, we'll give you a chance to do that.

Hello, my name is David Klingerberg. I live here in Roy, adjacent to the property in question. I currently have a pretty nice tall brick fence that runs across the back of my property. This will adjust into, basically we'll be sharing a fence line. I'm wondering if the aesthetic of that fence line is going to be continued alongside of my property. That's sort of my only concern at this point. I'm a lot less concerned than when I originally came in thinking that it was some sort of housing that was going to be back there. So thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Brian Smith and I'm I bought the property and it was in rough, rough shape. Took out some big trees that were dangerous, pretty expensive to do that. Took out a trailer that was back there, four sheds that were definitely not savable. Who knows what was going on in those back sheds. So compared to what I took over and what's going to happen with the property, When I bought the property, I wasn't thinking. I just said, wow, this could be a really great big yard, right? And then as we got going on it, we found out that the people behind us were developing, and they had interest in purchasing part of that land. We still would have a third of an acre, which is a pretty good-sized lot. And so we thought, hey, this would be great. We thought we could do it just a boundary lot adjustment like Jason has said. But I guess some things have happened in the city where this is the more proper way to do it is to go and have it amended and have the zoning done. But that is what's going to end up happening is this property where it's delineated will go. It looks a little bit more triangle on this than when you look at the other page where it really does show the shape of it. I think it's going to be an upgrade to the community. And I know that I have an interest in it. My brother and I are the ones that are trying to sell off this back portion of the property. So I think if you look down 5,200, there's a lot of parking there. And people just park right in front of this field already. I think having more parking is going to be a good thing. To be completely honest, I think that the pickleball court is one of the ideas, and maybe that's what they're gonna do there. I'm not the developer on it. But regardless, it's way, way, way better than what it was. And the house looks nice now. And I think it's an improvement for the area.

Hello, Tony Blaiswick, Liv and Roy. I didn't plan on getting up, but just hearing some of the comments, I thought I'd give some input. Pickleball, it's an activity. Everybody can do it, whether you want to or not. The decibel for pickleball is less than a vacuum. So if you look at it, it's between 59 and 70 decibels, which is comparable to the sound of a vacuum cleaner or normal conversation at normal volume. So I'm sure this community will have parameters on timeframe, but to me, I'd rather listen to laughter and games and having fun versus drugs and everything else. And I think change is scary for people, and I think that's the whole problem, is everybody's afraid of change. And I think anything to do to increase Roy as prosperous. I live on 5600. I know what it looks like. I know the traffic. So to have a couple more cars down the road is not a big deal. And driving today in front of that vacant lot, the whole street was lined with cars. So adding that extra parking, it's going to take it off the roads. So to me, I think a lot of change is scaring people. And a pickleball shouldn't be scary.

Thank you.

Ryan Hunsaker, 5215 South, 3400 West. So while my backyard doesn't abut this proposed change here, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT SOME POINT IN TIME TO HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THESE PLANS THAT ARE COMING BECAUSE OF THAT EMPTY LOT THAT THIS IS NEXT TO. JUST THINK GOLDEN RULE. IF THIS WAS IN YOUR BACKYARD, WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY? OKAY? THERE ALREADY IS A FENCE. IT'S A NICE, YOU KNOW, BIG THICK ONE FOR SOME OF THE PROPERTIES. whose backyard is next to the clinic? What about those of us who have backyard abutting this proposed higher density residential dwelling plus the pickleball court? What has been done to study the impact that this proposed property, and I know this is just like a piece that's gonna be added but, And maybe that's going to be in a future council meeting, but what has been done to study the impact of this on the community? What will be done to see how this will impact our lives? You know, for those of us that have kids, I mean, this doesn't seem like it would be a bad thing necessarily, but what has been done to study this?

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this one? Okay, a motion is in order.

Motion to close public hearing.

Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. We're now out of public hearing.

Either myself or applicant.

Yeah, let's maybe give you the first opportunity and then Steve can go through the

Just two small things. One of the people speaking tonight talked about the traffic going from 53rd down. I have no idea what that has to do with anything, because you can't get from our site to that without going clear out onto 3500 West, going south, turning left, and then going back in.

There's no connection between this property and neighboring traffic.

Am I missing something? Oh, 5,200. Okay. Well, 5,200. Well, the property's already zoned multifamily. It's going to be multifamily regardless what you do tonight. There's going to be a lot more traffic on 5,200 because of how it's zoned now. Urban corridor. Have I got it right?

You do have it right.

Somebody's going to build something there in the urban corridor, and it allows multifamily up to four stories, as terrible as that is. Somebody else got that approval long before me. By the way, we will be back talking about specific plans and how we can be considerate of the neighbors. I realize that considerate is a relative word, but we'll talk about that later. This is not tennis. You won't be hearing the ping pong, ping pong. This is like hitting a badminton back and forth. Think badminton. And as far as late night hours keeping people awake, I think that we could consider hours. Nothing after a certain time, but that would be at a later time once the site plan approval is here for your consideration.

Would this be open to the public, I think, was one of the questions.

It's not open to the public, except to the extent that the residents would invite their friends to come, which I do expect them to do. They're not going to be hermits living in the neighborhood without friends. They will go to the local church. They'll go down to the local golf course. They'll go to the exercise area. Sooner or later, these new people will make friends, and I would guess that some of them may invite some members of the public to come and play in the pickleball court, although it's not open to the public in the usual sense, but only by invitation.

Well, there was a comment that was made about the substantial fence that's there now. would it be reasonable to say that you could continue with that fence that would kind of block some of the noise? I'm familiar with pickleball courts and the noises they make, but they've talked about this single block fence they've had there. Is it feasible?

It's worth considering when we get to the site plan approval. Okay. I'm just saying. I just don't know where the, nobody's identified where they live. They all are near there, but I don't know whether it's north, south, east, or west. So when we get to the site plan approval, which we will be back to do, then we're totally open to all of those things. Time limits, fences, whatever. But at this point, we're just talking about the zoning that would allow the parking and the other uses there.

Okay. Thank you.

OK, not a lot of questions, more of just statements. But if I had a large backyard and I wanted to play pickleball, I could put a pickleball court in my backyard today. or a tennis court or a basketball court or anything. So there's nothing different that this would be than what could be allowed on a single family parcel today. Now, the noise ordinance says that you can start being noisy at this, I think it's 7 a.m. and have to be done by 10 p.m. So I would assume their hours are gonna be similar to that, just like Emma Russell Park that has pickleball or Municipal Park that has tennis courts. There is time frames that the city ordinances do not allow for decibels to go over. I can't remember what it is, but there is a noise ordinance today. Sharing fence line, it will be whatever the ordinance requires. There will need to be some sort of fencing for privacy. Now, if it requires to be brick and mortar or vinyl, that's going to be up to the developer. But the code, I think, just says vinyl. So it's just one of those things that we just have to go by whatever the code requires. If I remember right, he mentioned it would be 55 and older community. Is that right, Jerry? So not many kids, just a lot of older people like me.

20% younger people are allowed in that.

OK. So it looks like 20% could be younger, but you're not going to have a lot of kids out there playing around and goofing around. Even if it was just a park, I think it'd be, a good amenity to have. Now, maybe they put it somewhere else because of comments and just have parking in this area. That's up to them when they actually start doing the site plan and come before you. So I think I got... Most everybody's question.

So if this parcel were to split and be sold, right? The whole reason we're talking about a rezone is so we don't just have a little orphaned triangle that's part of the development. Could a pickleball court be built on that parcel as is?

Yes. Now, the property can't subdivide if it's not associated with a parcel that has access to a public road. So if someone denies, say the rezones denied for this parcel, it can't just be subdivided because it doesn't have direct access to a public road like the house or like the development. So if the council somehow denies everything, the subdivision won't occur.

And I guess my point is it's kind of an allowed use now. We're not really changing the allowed use. it would just be part of this development or potentially remain with the other.

Okay, any other questions from any of the commissioners? I have a comment. Pickleball.

Randy Skadden probably remembers. The city put one in George Wallen Park, and the neighbors came out in droves that it was going to be way too noisy. The city put it in. There hasn't been a complaint since. In the summertime, during the heat of the day, there's nobody on it. and i drive past there all the time it's very seldom used except like at eight in the morning until nine and then it's empty and maybe somebody shows up about seven and plays till eight and then they're gone but it is youtube cranked it up to where it's you know explosion after explosion it's not so

OK, a couple of motions are in order.

A motion to forward a positive recommendation to rezone property located at 3426 West 5300 South, or amend the general plan, pardon me, of property located at 3426 West 5300 South from single family residential to commercial mixed use. Second.

Okay, let's do a roll call.

Okay. Commissioner Felt. Aye. Commissioner Tandner. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Young. Aye. Commissioner Calley. Aye. Commissioner Bailey. Aye. Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Graff. Aye. And I'm getting everybody's name wrong today.

Okay, a second motion is in order on this one.

I move to amend the zoning map from RE15 residential estates to UC urban corridor for the property located approximately at 3426 South, 5300 South. And that does not require a positive recommendation to the city council. It does. Yes. We recommend. With a positive recommendation to the city council.

Second.

Motion to second. And this is another roll call.

Commissioner Cowley? Aye. Commissioner Bailey? Aye. Commissioner Young? Aye. Commissioner Tanner? Aye. Commissioner Felt? Aye. Commissioner Graf? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Just like the other one, most likely be on Thursday, or next week, but I'll let you know.

Okay, thank you, and thank you for the public for their comments. We'll now move on to agenda item number five, which is also a public hearing, and this is to consider a request for a development agreement with Coal West LLC regarding a project located approximately 5154 South, 2700 West, to allow 26 single-family dwellings on similar lots. And if the applicant could come forward. Go ahead and tell us your name and what city you live in, and then tell us about your project here and what you want in the development agreement.

All righty. Someone forgot their phone here, so they might come and grab that. I'll leave that there. But my name is Chase Peterson. I'm representing Coal West 610 North 800 West Centerville. And, Steve, I did send you a quick slideshow, or I can just hand you these. I brought these.

Yeah, I forgot. all righty so as those are going around I

So the purpose of this development agreement and hopefully to discuss tonight is to, sorry, I'll wait just a sec.

There's four of these and five of the other.

There's some extra site plans as well. Sorry, I'm a little short. Um, thanks for, thanks for bearing with me and thank you planning commission for being here as well as city staff. And thanks to all the residents. So the purpose of this development agreement, um, is to point out that we are actually planning on, um, this 2.89 acre parcel to. be or to have 26 single-family detached homes put on it that would then allow this site to have a density of nine acres per unit as opposed to the 12 acres per unit which is allowed in this current zoning hopeful that this will allow more homeowners in this city as well as helping hopefully with more attainable housing the site plan shows there's 26 detached homes allowing good private space, good lawns, good lawn space and then on that third sheet in there it shows the specifications of each lot a little bit more which you can see is 35 wide on the smallest lot, 35 wide and then 87 deep. And those last two pages will show some of our product, hopeful to bring in aesthetically pleasing home and home looking homes to the area. Our Benton home, which is the product that we would build here is 25 wide. So again, hopeful to really establish a good community in which these single family detached can allow more homeowners in the area and just want to specify it. It says so in there, but all of these units are two story homes with two car garages, three bed, two and a half bath and have a little bit of range and square footage there, but that's it for us.

My name's Doug Cherry. I'm the current owner of this property. I've had it for quite a few years. And if it stands as is, we could build 36, well, probably 34 townhomes. And I made the choice to do a single-family home and make it a little bit nicer in that neighborhood. Then I reached out to Coal West, and this is where we're at today. I'd like to, I guess it's a rezone. Or is it a rezone? Nope, just a change. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions before you guys sit down? Any questions from any of the commissioners? Okay, thank you. We may have some questions in a minute, so.

Steve. Okay, so as mentioned, this is a request for a development agreement. Now, I want to stop here. The difference between a development agreement and a rezone, very little different. What it is is the development agreement will just basically say, okay, yes, we understand there's an R3 zone there now. We just want some changes in that. And in this case, it would be lots that are smaller. for single family detached and private roads versus public roads. That's the reason for a development agreement. The site plan had kind of had up for a bit, so just kind of looking at it, as Mr. Terry had said, they could build 34 town homes today. But if they developed it in a single family residential under the R3 zone, it requires 6,000 square foot per lot and on a public street. This is where that development agreement comes in. It's still single family homes on smaller lots and a private street. So again, an HOA will be taking care of the street, except for the sewer and water lines, which will be public. Most reason for that is the state changes if you have an, I can't remember the number of units on a water line, they become their own district. So we've decided as a city not to do that. We'll always have a public water line in there so we are the district and we don't have other districts around. Plus it makes it a lot easier for us to maintain it and have control over what comes in and out. Currently, it's 12 units per acre. I know the developers talked about 12 acres per unit, but it's 12 units per acre. What they're requesting is about 13 units per acre on the size, and at 6,000 square feet, you can get seven units per acre. So they're asking for a little bit more. But in essence, I can build 34 townhomes. They're only wanting 26 single families. So it's less than, but more. So kind of in the middle-ish area. Setbacks will be a little different. Townhomes, single family on 6,000 square foot lot, 25 front yard, eight sides, 20 rear. So they're looking at... 20 sat back rather than 25 in the front, four on each of the sides. Yes, it's only eight feet between the two, but building code will require firewalls, so there'll be no windows, no nothing. You can't reach out and touch your neighbor if you open up a window. Rear yards will be a little less, 12 feet. Still required, can't be taller than 35 feet to peak a roof. Still require two-car parking, if that's a garage carport or just open. So all the same requirements as a single-family home would apply. I put the zoning map on there just so you can see. It is zoned R3 today. In that neighborhood, there's R18, RE20, light manufacturing. So it's a melange of everything in the neighborhood. So will it be out of place? Not really. Everything's out of place already. This will just kind of help with, if you do single family homes, just continue with what it is. They're just on smaller lots. A project that we've got already similar to this is the, oh, whatever gate it's called, Highgate, next to the Bridge Academy on Midland. Those are on about 3,200 square foot lots. And these ones are about 3,100. So similar type of project. Sounds like similar type of housing too. So staff would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the council.

Thanks, Steve. Any questions for Steve?

So we have the one access road. The second one blocks instead of going. Is there a code reason for that? Oh. Thank you. I retract my question as we are approving site plan.

Reason why. You have 5,200 south right there, and there needs to be a minimum of 100 feet between that intersection and where another road can come in and out. So that's why it's been moved to the north.

Perfect. Thank you.

That's why this other one won't go through. But it still would meet fire because they have a hammerhead to get in and out. And again, I think it's 30 or 32 homes before it has to be a second access or homes are sprinkled.

Thank you.

But that's a fire department question. We'll refer to the fire department to answer that later. This is all conceptual still.

Okay, I think we're ready to move into a public hearing if there's a motion.

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

We're gonna go with Anna. Okay. Commissioner Graf had that one. All right, so we have a motion to go into public hearing and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we are now in public hearing and I think by now you all know the drill. So please come on up, state your name and address and if more than one of you want to comment, please let's make a queue and keep moving here.

My name is Kevin Homer and I live here in Roy. As I look at the little bit of information that's been provided to the public in the 30 seconds that we've had to look at it on the monitors and the five minutes or so that you all have had to look at this development proposal, I think that there's probably some merit to this. One thing that I'm concerned about is the information provided to the public has not even happened until we saw it on the screen. And you as planning commission members didn't even see it until five minutes before, you know, when we started five minutes ago. For me, I think it's rather insulting to the commission and insulting to the public to not have access to this information. This is a public hearing. There's very little chance that we're going to provide valuable feedback because we didn't have a chance to look at this. I appreciate the recommendation of the staff to go along with this, but I would recommend that you table this until you as a commission and the public have had a chance to actually review the development proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Tom Spencer. I live at 5085 South 2700 North, just north of this property. I have a few concerns. The first one, this has been a historical problem where a proposal was put forward, was denied, was come back. The initial one was for an R13, came back denied. Within the neighborhood, we accepted that an R16 would be acceptable, and that was approved. Later on, it was then approved again for an R13. Again, we're now kind of following that same trend. You could say it was 20 houses could be fit, and now we're asking for 26. So again, we're taking that approval or, how do you want to say, standard, and then asking for more. My biggest concern, however, is for fire. As you know, we've had a number of fires along the rails this summer. We've had five in Weber County alone, six if you want to count the one just over the border in Clinton. We've had three houses here in this city that were destroyed and one fatality in Washington Terrace. Talking on the social media groups, it was discussed that Union Pacific will not trim the grass along the trails. They'll only spray, which of course we know just creates more dead grass. And then has actually threatened homeowners with trespassing charges if they went out to try to protect their own properties. Begs the question, is $1,000 or whatever the fine is for trespassing worth your house, but that's neither here nor there. The three homes that were lost, I looked on Google Earth, had about a 50 to 75 foot standoff from the property line. This proposal gets a 12 foot standoff to the property line and is only eight feet between the houses. I understand you mentioned the firewalls, but when you're talking that close, if you get a fire going that quick, it's going to be pretty going. I actually would like to hear the fire department's comment, especially if they have tabletop exercise on this scenario on if a fire got going on the tracks and got going to the houses, even with station 32 just down 5200, how many houses would be expected to be lost? And with that number is to know what this planning commission and the city council, what that number is acceptable to you. Additionally, the home itself has a lot of history. It is currently the oldest house on 2700 between 6000 and 4800. The number two is actually our house. Also during the the Weber County Heritage Foundation and at least one history of Roy book has mentioned the infirmary had a cemetery. I would like to know if there's possible to do a survey so that way we can take care of any former Roy residents that are actually could possibly be there to make sure they are reinterred somewhere else with honor. Thank you.

Dustin Davis. Oh, geez. Dustin Davis, Royce City. My home is the one right south of it, so I'm potentially looking at eight new neighbors. It brings to mind privacy. It's a lot of potential neighbors that are going to have an opinion on the state of my property. I maintain and manage the easement there for Weber Basin Water and a portion of UTA's property in the back. Am I going to be in conflict with these new neighbors maintaining that property? So I'm just wondering how that's going to go down pertaining to that.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak to this?

My name is David Tracy. I live across the street from Doug's property. Doug's a good guy and You know, I really like him, and he's been a good neighbor. I want to disagree with him a little bit, but I want it to be civil. The thing that bothers me is that down on 56, you just allowed, I can't remember how many more people single family homes down there. There's another project that's probably in the works on 4800 on the other end. And then there's Doug's property and there's actually another property that's like, I think it's about three acres across the street and further north. The people that have bought houses, along 2700 from 56 to 48, wanted an area that had a big backyard, which the houses on the west side have very large backyards. They wanted to be able to have a garden or have an animal or just have a nice place to grow some trees and sit out and enjoy the the backyard. That's all going away with this high density. And so when you approve more and more and more high density in Roy City, it just takes away from the life of the residents that moved here because they didn't want to be in high density. If they wanted to be in high density, they probably would be living in somewhere in Ogden or Salt Lake. See what I mean? So that's the one objection I have to all this high density that's coming into Roy. Because with the high density, there's also cost to police, cost to utilities, cost to snow removal. The city has more and more and more costs when they have more and more residents. And I know that you want a better tax base, but you know, sometimes if you have to put in a new sewer line, it takes you a long time to catch up to that tax base. See what I'm saying? So it's not a free ride for the city. They have a lot of expenses when they put in more structures. So the only other thing that I would like to ask Doug is about two or three months ago, a big, track coal came in on a semi and parked in front of the property, and it went down to the south. That's your time if you can wrap up. Let's see. That would be the southwest corner. No, the southeast corner of the property. And the question has never been solved whether there's graves in that corner of the property. It's come up before in other hearings. And I think Doug has said that there wasn't graves there. But I think the city should find out one way or the other if there are graves in that corner of the property. rumor or what the story that we hear is. Thank you.

That's your time, if you could wrap up.

Okay. Like at the turn of the century when the hospital was there, if a person died and there was nobody claiming the body, they just moved the bodies over there and buried them. So we don't know for sure, but it would be nice to find out. Thank you. Thank you.

Any comments? We'll give you a chance to respond afterward.

I'm Bill Underwood. I live on the north side of that property. And I'm concerned about the value of my property and how this development will affect that when I have five new backdoor or side yard neighbors. I understand that you can have two dogs per house. So I might be introduced to 10 new neighborhood dogs. And so I'm concerned about the value of my property. And I'm also concerned about my lifestyle that might be affected by having five new neighbors next door. I appreciate trying to make the most out of that property, but those houses are only be 20 feet from my property line now. Thank you.

Thank you. Right, anybody else? Okay.

Motion to go out of public hearing.

Seconded.

Motion and a second. We are now out of public hearing. Oh, sorry, we need to vote on it, yes. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, passes unanimously. We're now out of public hearing. Mr. Terry, go ahead and come back up.

First of all, I think it's been well documented in books about Roy that there was no graves on that property. My grandfather probably purchased that property around 1930. And I've talked to my dad quite a few times about it, and there's never been an incidence where there's a grave on that property. There's graves definitely to the south of the property where our neighbor lives behind his house. And as far as the high density, where I'm trying to lower the density, You know, if this gets voted no, then we're going to come right back. We only need approval. We'll do townhomes in there. And I'm trying to be a good neighbor.

Yeah, just, well, Doug just said it, but the zoning does allow that 34 or 36 units, and we are trying to appease the feelings and concerns. What the neighbors want, again, just want to thank all the residents for their comments as we are trying to hopefully make this a great development to be a neighbor to. Thank you.

All right, Steve.

It was commented about you not having access to the information that was presented. The only thing that's being asked for is smaller lots, 26 units, and setbacks. And that was all part of your packet. page 12 and 13.

We did have the packet on Friday from Steve with the information. I'm not sure what was available to the public.

That packet's available to the public when it's put on the public website. So as for the types of homes that could be... When was that put on the public notice website? Do you know off the top of your head? As a notice or as a... Agenda.

So we got the packets on Friday.

I'm just trying to see when that was. The agenda goes on the public website that same Friday. Okay. The packet goes on our website on Friday. Okay.

And that information is disseminated to several different community pages.

No, that I don't know because I don't do that.

Well, I do know that. We have someone that's very diligent to make sure that that transcript is there.

But as for the types of homes that could be there, that's not what's being asked in the development agreement. So that's just extra information of these are the types of homes that they have built previously on these type of lots. So they're not asking you to approve these homes it's just 26 single family homes on smaller lots on a private street in this area make sense or not with those setbacks so those are things you need to look at they can change the type of home if they want can't go over 35 feet, still has to have two-car parking, still has to meet the setbacks as designed in the development agreement. So there are things that are already set in place. They're just asking for an increase in single-family homes on smaller lots on a private street. As mentioned in my presentation and by the property owner, they could build 34 townhomes today. They don't want to. They want to do single family, drop it down to 26. So they're looking for some stuff to get some stuff. They'll give you single family on smaller lots is what they're looking for. As a historic preservationist in the past, I always liked older homes. But there's nothing, unless the city is willing to buy it and preserve it, or the historic society to buy it and preserve it, there's nothing that says homes can't be demolished. In Clinton City, the oldest home, there is now a holiday oil. They took that down without even thinking twice. And it had seven pitches at different pitch levels. And I mean, it was a beautiful home. But unless someone's willing to preserve it and put it on the National Register or create a local register, there's really nothing there that we can do about the part of it. Now, does that mean we couldn't put a plaque in there? Very similar that's on 2700 West and 6000 South. There's placards that are there talking about what used to be there and what, I mean, those are things that we could put on there and even have a picture of the old house as part of it, still recognizing the historic aspect of it. Because it's not part of it, I mean, the site plan may come back with a, a sound wall between the railroad and this that's 10 feet tall and made of concrete, which will help with the fire. That's not part of this review nor a requirement. They could leave it open, very similar to everybody's backyards that are just chain link fences. So if a fire is to come out, I don't think this will be the only project that'll have issues. It'll be everybody will have those concerns and problems. They usually do do an ALTA survey to find out what's there. If there are concerns of graves, those are things that the property owner will have to divulge if there are. He's already mentioned that there are not. The number of dogs, I mean, not everybody has dogs. Yes, you could have up to 10, but you may only have two. It's hard to say. But if I have 34 townhomes, there's going to be a lot more. So I think that's really all the questions, unless you have a couple that I didn't. The value. That's always hard to say because usually it's like for like. So if this is a three-bedroom, two-car, and they've got a five-bedroom, three-bath, two-car, they're not going to be appraised. No appraiser is going to make that a comp to what they have. So value is always hard to get. to figure out will it or will it not no it shouldn't because it's not the same comparable aspect but i'm not an appraiser either it's it's an unknown okay any further questions or comments

I've also got some background working with historical groups and such and so we don't have anything in our ordinances or anything like that to provide an avenue for preservation for something like this because nobody has come in and already identified and had those homes registered.

No. And at the same, oh. There is no city let our landmarks commission or north city code for historic preservation doesn't mean it couldn't be put on the national register for historic places but that only comes into effect if they want to rehab it for tax credits even a national register it can still be torn down yes nothing stops it

Thank you, that was actually where I was heading. Thank you. And then also with that, as far as the questions about whether or not there may be residents interred on the property, we also don't have any kind of ordinance or any kind of avenue to have that as part of the process to check any, I'm not even sure what that would be called.

for the graves? Yes.

Or what do you? A way to evaluate a property to see if at some point in the past there had been. I don't know. Do we have anything?

I mean, other than an analysis survey that just kind of shows you what's there. I mean, it's going to have to go off of historic knowledge. And if someone remembers that there was something somewhere, you know, it sounds like it's more of the southwest corner that's in question than the rest of the property. The property's owner is saying there is nothing. If there's still a question, then the developer will have to kind of look at it and tread lightly as they dig. It's hard to say. When there's no record of it, there's no record of it.

And we don't have any ordinance or code to fall back on as this is how we handle it?

Not unless you're in a grave site that's been dedicated.

Thank you.

Any other questions. And i've thought long and hard about this one, and it really is a question of a single family homes that a higher density. or leaving it as it is or townhomes and and I think if we leave it like it is it's probably townhomes and i'm just thinking out loud here but i've kind of wrestled with that and. I think that's kind of the choice I have to make tonight is really, do I think single family homes here are the best or the town homes? So a motion's in order.

motion to send a favorable recommendation or a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed development agreement for the property located at 5154 South 2700 West okay so favorable recommendation for the development agreement is there a second second

Have a second, and this will be a roll call.

CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Reed? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Felt? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Young? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Calley? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Graff? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Tanner? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, Commissioner Bailey? Aye. CHRIS JERRAMSEN, This will most likely be on the October 1st meeting, the first Tuesday. But I'll let you know for sure.

Okay, we are now on to our last public hearing of the night. To consider amending Title 10, zoning regulations, amending Chapter 10, general property development standards, Chapter 17, table of uses, and Chapter 19, off-street parking and loading regarding detached accessory dwelling units per SB 284 from this past legislative session.

as if you haven't already heard about this one a few half dozen times already. So in our conversations, and as mentioned, this comes from Senate Bill 284 that requires all cities to allow for detached accessory dwelling units on all properties that are 11,000 square feet or more. It goes into effect October 1st of this year. So regardless if this passes by that time or not, I already know of three people chomping in the bits to make application for it. So the question comes in, do we want to have those developed under what we want or what the state allows? There are some differences, but for the most part, we're meeting all state aspects with what we've got written here. So here in table 17, which is the table of uses, here we'd show that all zones except for the mobile home parks can have this. Allowed on 11,000 square foot lots or larger. Additional parking spaces per table 19-1, which we'll get to. The property must be occupied, at least one of those units, by the primary resident. So it can't be two rentals. Property owner must live there. Only one detached ADU per property. Must be rented for 90 consecutive days or longer. Must obtain a rental license through the city. Then here I've got some other standards that they need to look at. These are dealing with just accessory dwelling, accessory units. accessory dwelling, whatever. Anyway, accessory units that will get part of it, especially nine. And then a notice will be recorded to the county. Now, granted, that notice could be the building permit, because they'll have to get a building permit to build one or a building permit to convert one. Or I just put one on there as well that this is a legal unit, can be rented as long as the property owner lives there. Other aspects in 10-28, accessory buildings. That's the word I was looking for, buildings. Because one of the aspects that the state wanted is if you already have an accessory building and someone wants to convert it to a dwelling, cities must allow for that to occur. Now, that existing building that was built legally had to have had to permit, as long as it met the setbacks at the time, can be converted. Now, years ago, it was only a two-foot setback rather than today's code of three-foot setback. So again, if it was built legally, they can convert it. The building code will require certain things to occur. But we're not saying you can't do that. Now, it doesn't mean you couldn't have an accessory building and an accessory dwelling unit on the property, different buildings. So this kind of goes through where it can be. It can be within the public utility easement. It cannot be in the front or side yard, so we're making sure that it's in the backyard. B, it talks about 10 feet or more behind the primary than it can be within three feet of property lines. Consistent with the design. Design consistently with the home. So you don't want some big metal structure that's on a nice brick building. At least have some consistency. Now, I'm not looking for brick for brick. But colors, if you want a metal building, at least paint it the same color as the house so there is consistency. Yeah, utilities, you can't have separate utilities for all of them. They have to go through the main building or main homes, utilities, water, sewer, electrical. That's the same with the existing accessory buildings anyway. Now, number 14, we're scratching out because while we're reviewing this section, the question comes, why can't I have an attached to my house that's bigger than the house? If it meets the setbacks, do I care if your new addition is two and a half stories and your old house is only one? I shouldn't care as long as it meets building height setbacks and meets building code. So this will just take out, has nothing to do with the detached, but it doesn't make sense to leave it in. It doesn't make sense to me, nor did it to any of you when we were first talking about it. I'd mentioned that there was two sections of the code to reference the 101029. We're not changing anything in it. Again, it just goes over location, size. So it can't be bigger than 1,250 square feet if you're in most of the R1 zones, or no more than 25% of the rear yard can be taken up in impervious surfaces. So those things still will apply to this. Parking-wise, this is more of a state requirement. So if it's 649 square feet or less, we can only require one additional parking space. If it's 650 square feet or larger, we can require two. And that's what we've got written down here is one and two. Now, these spaces cannot be within the required front yard setback. So they've got to be in the side or in the rear. So, after further review, again, staff would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council of the amendment as written.

Okay, any questions for Steve? If not, a motion for public hearing is in order.

Motion to go into public hearing.

We have a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. We are now in public hearing. Same drill after being the fourth one. I think everybody knows the drill. But is there anybody here who would like to speak to this change? Keep looking at you, Mr. Holmes. Okay. All right. I want to make sure everybody has a chance. So last, last call. All right.

Motion to go out of public hearing.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Bailey. Sorry. Commissioner Bailey. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We are now out of public comment. Any further discussion or a motion is in order.

know we've had a lot of work sessions so yeah killed this one make a motion that we recommend afford a positive recommendation to city council regarding the proposed amendments to title seven zoning regulations amending blah blah blah title 10 sorry look like a seven for a second um the z and the ten yeah okay okay um Chapter 10, general property development standards. 28, accessory building and accessory uses, general requirements. Chapter 17, table of uses. Table 17, one table of allowed uses, residential zoning districts. Chapter 19, off-street parking and loading. Eight, required off-street parking. Table 19, required off-street parking.

That was a mouthful.

Thanks for that.

Holy crap.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. And this is another roll call vote.

Mr. Bailey. Aye. Mr. Reed. Aye. Mr. Felt. Aye. Mr. Young. Aye. Mr. Calley. Aye. Mr. Graff. Aye. Mr. Tanner.

Aye.

This is the only one I know for sure will be on next week. Because if not, then it won't get passed in time.

There you go. We'll now move on to item number seven, which is a request for site plan approval for Ironwood Station located approximately 2275 West, 3775 South. And is the applicant here for that one? The Ironwood Station. I'm fine with tabling it if the applicant's not here. Do you need a motion for that?

Well, do you want me to kind of explain it in aspect, then you can table it? Or table it right off the bat?

Just table it. Just table it. In my opinion. Ryan?

Let's see what's there, because if there is nothing, I mean, historically we want the applicants to be here. Okay.

So this is site plan review.

Sorry, let's do this. I can't make a motion, but I suggest maybe we move to the rest of the agenda because we're supposed to finish our meetings by 8.30, and then let's address this at the end of the meeting so that those other ones that are here.

So motion to move this agenda item to the end of the list.

Motion to move on to the next agenda item.

Agenda item.

Second. Okay, motion to second to move forward. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK. We'll move on to agenda item number eight, which is a request for site plan approval for Park 43, Phase 2, located approximately 4375 West, 5460 South.

I'll base it to it so you guys can get done quick. Does that work? I'm Pete Smith. With Advanced Homes, we're excited to present this to you, a request for site plan approval to expand on a current development that we just finished off of 4300 West. This is to utilize a portion of property on the west side of Howard Slough. providing access for three single family homes to be added to the existing HOA via a private road. We spent quite a bit of time coordinating with upper city to verify access because the private lane access is off of 4375. currently abuts the city boundary. So as you can see, looking to access off of the circle with a driveway for a private lane to construct three single family homes. The first picture you have in there is schematic of What we're tentatively looking at the second is what is currently built in the town homes on the east side of the slough. Our intention is to maintain general architectural principles from the town homes to continue the property. We reviewed the site working with Steve to identify open space requirements to ensure that the overall development maintains the open space requirements of the current zoning as well as the open usable space. It'll also incorporate access to the trail system that connects throughout the city along Howard Slough. And we'll access water through Hooper Water Improvement District. We'll serve letters for both them as well as Roy. We're in the process of Roy Water Conservancy District for secondary. This is consistent with what was approved when the original development was approved for the town homes on the east side of the slough. Provides a good buffer between the multifamily and the single family development as well as allowing us to try and construct somewhat affordable homes within Roy City limits.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay, we may have some questions in a minute, but Steve.

As mentioned, this is a phase two of part 43. They're off of 4300 West and about 5460 South. Just kind of give you geographic holiday oil in the northwest corner of 55 and 4300. This is one of those little outcroppings. that's in Roy and north and south and west of it is Hooper. So to the east of this development are townhomes. There's 32 townhomes that were approved. When the property was rezoned, the council approved the rezoned subject that anything west of the slough was single family only. So that's what this aspect is, or if it Could have been townhomes. I think they'd have already built them. But this is the single family aspect of it. They still have to maintain open space for the whole project. The unfortunate part is it did take, I'd say, several months, I'll give them that, to have Hooper allow them access off of their right of way, which was pretty sad. But I won't go there. My state statutes, there are no design guidelines for single-family homes, so I can't impose, but it's great to know that they're still looking to have similar to what those townhomes were. Like they said in the pictures you've got, you've got the townhomes that are already built there now, so it'll still be of similar design. I can't require anything more than that. If they're willing to do more, that's up to them. Aspect-wise, the DRC, most of the comments aren't planning related. They're more of sewer lines, water lines that come from the engineer and public works. Planning-wise, there is pretty, I mean, yes, there are a few, but nothing that couldn't be completed with very little information provided. There's only a number of parking stalls. Didn't know how many were gonna be there until the picture, but every single family home requires two-car parking. And multifamily, it's two and a half cars parking. So you get some visitors. So many of that aspect can be satisfied with no changes the way this layout is. So staff would recommend approving the site plan with the conditions in the staff report.

And this is what, six years in the making since we?

I couldn't tell you how long it's been.

I know it was during COVID because we were still remote when we when we did it, but it's kind of interesting because we had kind of that buffer, even though they're in Hooper, the buffer between the residential and the multifamily, and so it's interesting to finally see this one come before us. That's been a while, so. Any other questions for Steve? Okay, and this one is just one motion.

This is to approve, not to recommend or forward a positive.

I motion to approve the site plan 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.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We will now move on to agenda item number nine. Thank you for coming. This is a request for site plan and architectural approval for Quick and Clean, located approximately 1865 West Riverdale Road. And this is not the David Young that's on the planning commission. Is the applicant here for that one? Go ahead and come on up. and tell us your name, what city you live in, and then tell us about your project here.

Well, my name's David Young, and yet I've met another David Young. There's a lot of us out there. I live in South Weber, and I'm the owner of Quick and Clean. We purchased this property that was formerly TNT self-serve car wash in the Harmon's parking lot, and we own and operate multiple car washes up and down the Wasatch Front, and we We're able to convert the old wash into actually a dog wash, along with the self-serve bays, and we're able to put quite a bit of money into bringing it up so it looked a lot nicer. We enclosed that bay, we finished the exterior with blackboard steel panels. We really chose that because it matched what had already been up there on top of the black fascia and the roof line. So that enclosure reaches part of the original structure rather than a patch. Before that, it was a drive-through in-bay automatic that we converted. And that's basically the project. We updated the sign based on the name of the car wash as well.

Great. Any questions?

steve um as mentioned this is a request for site plan and architectural approval for the quick and clean there at 1865 west riverdale road previously the tnt car wash next to schooners and i want to say a rent-a-car hurts or something like that site plan wise this is what was proposed they had several parking stalls um this came into existence Without approval, it was already done. So we're trying to get it so we can move forward and get the appropriate approvals. The enclosed area along Riverdale Road, it's just glass and black. I mean, I think it looks good. If they enclosed all of them, this is probably what it would look like. Even if they did roller doors, they'd probably still have black framing and probably some sort of glass or tempered glass or plexiglass or what have you uh the back side they did use a material it looks like corrugated metal but painted it similar to the the brick or the not brick um name is escaping me no cinder block there we go um As you know, corrugated metal is not allowed in the zone. But it is an improvement. It does be as consistent with. So the Planning Commission, you can approve it with this kind of little change. Metal is allowed. It just needs to be architectural. But it is small. It's only, I wouldn't say 20. It's probably 20% of the overall building. Parking-wise. It does require a couple stalls where before none were required, because you're just driving in, washing, and going, and you had a place to park to vacuum. So the place really only needs three stalls. They provided six, or no, seven, six. I can't read that. Too small now. The staff kind of looked at it, and we just need the three that are in front. We don't need the two in the back, because there's real no access from the back side. And the one up towards the street, we can get rid of and then just improve the site by putting some trees. That will improve the site drastically from what it was before. Don't have to increase more landscaping elsewhere. Again, it was minor changes, but still needed to be approved from this body. So staff would just recommend approving it, both the site plan and the architecture.

Okay, any questions?

would require two motions but on the architecture if you're okay with the the metal that they have back there just make that part of your motion um i'm indifferent on it it's in the back it's painted the same color so can i just ask a question because i couldn't find the historical background on why downtown district this area that's not allowed Just part of the district when we went through the code and creating it, we wanted more of aerospace design, so more glasses and metals that are more flat in nature rather than corrugated.

Okay. Better aesthetics. That's kind of the gateway to the city.

Better aesthetics, that's why we kind of went that.

But knowing the fascia is kind of a similar material, that's why I'm indifferent if you approve it this way or not.

yeah corrugated adds a little bit of strength to it and it has been an improvement okay anybody want to make a motion uh i motion that we approve uh where am i i've just lost my spots The site plan, as long as it meets the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, right, with the exception of the metal? Is that what I have to say? This is the site plan. The architecture will cover them. Okay, perfect. So, yeah, the site plan and meeting the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Okay. Okay, do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes unanimously now the architectural approval.

and make a recommendation, we approve the architectural aspect. as long as we meet the minimum standard. We want to approve it or make a recommendation?

Recommendation. No, it's approve. We want to approve. Oh, wait. Approve it. Do you want the?

I want to approve.

Uh-huh.

Yep. Make a motion to approve the architectural aspect.

With the corrugated metal or without it?

With the corrugated metal.

Second.

Okay, so I have a motion to approve the. Not Bailey or Felt? Bailey. Architectural plan with the corrugated metal and a second by Commissioner Bailey. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Agenda item number 10 is a request for site plan and architectural approval for Mountain America Credit Union, located approximately 1919 West, 5600 South. And is the applicant here for that one?

If they're not, I understand.

My understanding is you were going to present first.

You are.

i don't want people thinking this is my project well i thought where it was presented last month While you're passing that out, I will introduce myself. I am Shane Sanders with Sanders & Associates Architects. We're in Ogden, and I am representing Mountain America Credit Union. This was presented last month. We resubmitted, and there were some additional concerns. We've looked at that. I just want to kind of give you kind of an example of what they're doing or want to achieve at this corner. That first picture, is a similar branch exterior of another branch that kind of shows the elements that achieve that aerospace design theme. I don't think that's in question, but just kind of want to give you an example. If you turn to the second page, this is the lobby of a typical branch. That large glass wall is to the back of the teller line. Behind that gray wall in the middle is a wall that sits in about three feet from the glass wall that a mural will be painted, will be painted by a local artist. And that mural will be based on kind of the history of Roy and some of the things that are going on in the city. For example, Hillfield and that aerospace theme, you would probably see that in the mural. So there's a desire for Mountain America to make that connection with the community. They want to be a part of the community. There will be that 9-0 wall that you see to the left of that picture is a wall that talks about the history of Roy also. And you see that in their branches. They try and make that connection with their members to the community. The third page, if you'll turn to that, that's the site plan. This is a very challenging site given the short depth north to south. It only creates a 50-foot frontage on 1900, which makes it difficult to design a building that can function for their use. The recommendation was to push that building. We thought we had achieved it, but based on Steve's review, we hadn't. So, what we're recommending to solve the problem is to rotate this building. The black is the original layout. The green would be the rotation, so that tall, large glass wall would face north, facing 5600. And then we could, with the red line, expand towards 1900 with offices. So those offices surround that lobby, which is kind of the function they need in these branches. We would move the south entrance that we were proposing to the west. That would be the entrance from the parking lot and from the development, from Ocean Mart. And then we would do the front entrance and move that to 1900, which is identified on that site plan. The only concern is that entrance. There was a comment in Steve's report that that entrance needed to be more grandiose, and it needed to match more than what we had proposed for the west entrance. The ordinance says that that portal or entrance can only be eight feet maximum, and that's what we had done on the north and we would propose doing here on the east. It would have all the same elements that the west entrance would have. It would have a covered canopy that would be lit, metal frame, wood soffit, and glass going in. The west entrance is going to look bigger because it can be bigger. But we're limited to eight feet on that width of the primary front entrance. I think that, I guess if you turn to the last page, and I just stated in the next page kind of the ordinance where we can be no wider than the eight feet. The very last page, and I don't, this wasn't a concern. Steve had just asked that we show how we've met the glazing percentages. In this new configuration, we're proposing it would be a little different, but we would meet those and I just want to make sure Steve's in agreement how we're coming up with this on the two street elevations It's that band that transparency band that's identified in the ordinance that's two feet off the ground and eight feet to the top and that's where that sixty percent is is calculated

And the unfortunate part is there was only enough packets for them. Oh, you didn't get one. Sorry.

I could have given you one.

We've got an extra. But to review it on the fly, it's kind of hard to say it meets it or not. Well, it meets it.

And I was just showing you how we come up with it. And I just want to make sure.

My comment was just provide that information on there.

Okay. And, again, that's going to change a little bit in the new – Site configuration, but we will meet that when we resubmit So we would ask that you approve based on that new site configuration and The entrances that we're proposing About this this new configuration would meet your 80% frontage on 1900 West and on the corner at the 15-foot setback. Again, very challenging site with that tight space we have to work with on 1900. But I think we have a solution here that meets the ordinance and satisfies Mountain America's kind of needs functionally to make this branch work. and all the other items that were mentioned in the report, we will meet and address in the recent middle.

Okay, any questions? All right, we may have some questions in a minute, but for the meantime, let's go over to Steve.

Well, my presentation isn't up to date. Again, this is the southwest corner of 56 and 1900 West, where the old Wells Fargo building was, but much of it has been chopped up, so it's a lot farther than it used to be. Here's the previous site plan, and then kind of the design features of the building prior. Now Planning Commission, if you kind of like what's going on here, you can go ahead and approve it subject to this meets the aspects of the code. I can bring those aspects back to you just so you have an idea of what the DRC comments would be. But I don't think tabling it, because just the setbacks is the biggest issue. And it looks like they're conforming to that. Having a doorway. The fun and the good and the bad and the ugly is knowing this is one of a few buildings that we've actually looked at in this new code, I was unaware that it was only eight feet wide. So if this is eight feet wide that meets the code, not much I can change about that. The access point there, it needs to be along the front or on the corner. So this would be ability there. And then parking lot would just assimilate a little bit to what this building change. So I mean, I could bring you back the DRC comments for the new submittal, just so you are aware of if there's any large concerns. But you could approve it. Just conditions on the DRC comments are satisfied. I don't foresee huge things. at the moment that would saying, you know, don't do it, red flags come out into it, so.

I think that this meets the questions that I brought up and concerns that I had prior to this, so.

I think they've looked at it knowing that the only 15 feet needs to be met and by changing around a bit will, does help it, so. Okay.

and they still have to meet the other standards, so. Okay, anybody wanna make a motion? There'll be two total, but we can start with the first.

I make a motion to approve the site plan for the Mountain America project with the condition that the DRC comments are satisfied.

And do we want to make sure that that states as presented to us tonight?

That's fine. And as presented to us tonight.

Okay.

Do we have a second? Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. That takes care of the site plan. Now the architectural.

I make a motion to approve the architectural review with the condition that the DRC comments are satisfied and with what we learned tonight.

Second. Okay, motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Okay, let's do agenda items number 11 and 12, and then we'll see where we're at as far as addressing the other one. Commissioner's Minute. Do any of the commissioners have anything that they would like to bring up? I just want to recognize Mr. Skadden, who is now... There goes my items. All right, Steve, it's all yours. Go for it.

There was a flyer on where you were at before. They're just looking for planning commissioners and or city council members who'd be interested in joining them. So if you're available, please look at attending. You can give them a call. If you have questions, I can give you the gentleman's card. I only had one, so I can email that to you if you have more questions. But they're just looking for... some elected and appointed officials to help serve on there. And then second, we have a new planning commissioner since Jeremy Thompson stepped down for health reasons. And unfortunately, the mayor had pointed and the council ratified Randy Skadden. No. Actually, I'm excited. I know Randy pretty well, as all of us have served on the council for many years. I think he will bring some information. I can't say wealth of knowledge. I have to retrain him as a planning commissioner. Come on up. Introduce yourself. If they don't know who you are. Does anybody not know who I am?

Has he been sworn in?

He's been sworn in, appointed.

He's alternate number two, so...

the official badge. And I still have my old land use authority book from when I was

We also have this cool thing called the internet that you can look that up on just for reference.

Welcome.

The same one hour required training you all went through before you could vote. So you know which hat you're wearing. I send them those videos too.

welcome um be fun serving with you so um any other items steve i really don't have much i mean yeah i'm gonna end it there i had more things i could say but i'm not gonna put it online Okay, so I'm gonna leave the last item, the fate of the last item up to the commission. We can either try to hear the item without the applicants here. I'd like to have the applicants here. I think that's fair for them. So either a motion to re-hear that item or we can do a motion to adjourn.

I'll go ahead and motion to table item number seven for a future time when we can hopefully hear from the applicants. Second.

Motion to table in a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, last motion. Motion to adjourn. In order. Did you get that, Steve?

Who seconded it? Me. Because apparently I can't hear people's voices on. Commissioner Bailey. Bailey seconded it? Bailey seconded it. It certainly sounded like 10 or.

Okay, so that was for the motion to table it. Yep. Okay, so now the last motion of the night, we're going to redo that so that we have that clearly on the record.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Motion to adjourn and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we are now adjourned.

Just for you. Oh, thank you. Yes. I love the clack. Especially when it's...