Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Will you tell us? I have that you tell the bill to make that questions.

Yeah. start. All right. Many parents These shirts.

Amen. probably do that. I mean I mean I can talk about his age. Royce,

do you know if Colin's gonna be joining us?

I know he's got the ethics training that he wants to go over, too. So,

why Seven.

What? Oh, the Syracuse Arts Academy number nine. I'm like, what? What? What? Good to know. That's cool. Make a note of that for the for the official bits. That's true.

How many just the chair? Okay. Okay.

Mr. Baker. might have to join online

James buddy. bigger still. Two minute warning.

Dylan's down there. Right. Yeah, if you have questions ask them, but it's probably just looking at the different to walk around if you know it can help.

It's like it's like cheers.

I'm so happy to be here. Few of those kind of an envelope coming this way. We can be on another board.

All right, looks like we're good. Royce, we good to go. Okay, welcome everyone. Bring to call the meeting to order of the planning commission.

Excuse me. For April 7th, um we will have a invocation or thought by Commissioner Sheay and pledge of allegiance will be led by Commissioner Garner. Our kind heavenly father, we've gathered here as a planning commission this evening and we are grateful for this uh country that we live in and the the to celebrate the 250 years uh of freedom that we enjoy. We invite thy guidance now as we uh see to the needs of our community. Uh help us to come to uh resolutions and conclusions that uh are fitting for uh to help our neighbors and and friends. Uh we love thee and are are grateful for this country and for the freedoms that we we have. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Would the audience please rise and repeat after me? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Shay, Commissioner Garner. Um before we go to the adoption of meeting agenda, I want to welcome our two new commissioners. Uh, looks like Dylan Merchant down here on my right and Commissioner Gage Thomas down here on my left. Welcome. We look forward to working with you and thank you for joining the commission. Uh, we will now move to the adoption of uh, today's meeting agenda. It's been posted in accordance with state law. I will take a motion to adopt. So move. And we have a motion to second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Moving on to the meeting minutes. Uh these are the regular meeting minutes from our meeting and work session for March 3rd. Um we'll take a if there are no changes or uh conversation needs to happen, we'll take a motion to adopt those minutes. I move ahead. I move we adopt the minutes. All right. We have a motion and a second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay. Moving on to the public comment. This is an opportunity for the public to address the planning commission regarding items that are not scheduled for a public hearing on this agenda agenda. If you have any comments about a specific item on tonight's agenda, please hold your comments for the public hearing during that time. Otherwise, if you have some comments that need to be addressed by the planning commission, welcome you to do that now and limit your com comments to three minutes or less. Anybody online? Not for this public hearing.

Perfect. All right. Uh with no comments, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Move on to item number four, public hearing for a preliminary plat. All right. So, uh this one is we've got quite a few here, so uh I guess buckle up. Um, this one's going to be the Falcon Landing Preliminary Plat, which is on 3000 West. Um, so there there's an existing subdivision actually uh just to the south of this Will Cox uh Meadows and essentially this is the same product um same type of development. So it'll be essentially an extension, not not actually of that subdivision, but it'll be the same type of thing. So, um let me show you overall what we're looking at. There we go. So, the existing subdivision I just mentioned is down here. And then I've got farm fields all around to the north and east. Um, so what what's proposed here is just two phases. They've got a phase line uh kind of on the eastern quarter roughly. Um there there has been a point of discussion which probably will come up during the public hearing, I'd imagine as well. Um the property owner to the north has requested a second access here somewhere on the eastern portion of this and we've done some code analysis. This came up after the staff report around so I would have included details about that in the report. Um but we did some analysis on it today with the code. Um that we uh as far as what's shown here meets all the minimum block size requirements, the minimum access requirements and everything. So we we don't really have like a legal um way to require that. So if the planning commission decides to uh decides that that second access to the north another

stub somewhere over here is prudent um that would be along the lines of recommendation as we don't really have the legal teeth for that. So um but uh other than that again you know we it's not something we require. So, uh, this does meet the other requirements of the code. Um, I I did have a discussion today with our fire marshall. Um, it we kind of have a couple of uh items here today where we've had discussions along these lines where uh our change in staff um we had just changes in proc well not changes in process but changes information have been provided to me. So um I believe that everything was addressed according to uh what we discussed earlier today. So again just to to reiterate uh there is a there is a review in this staff report which was the most recent review that I had available. Um our previous fire marshall just wasn't able to provide an updated review on the time that he had while he was shifting out of his position. However, the comments that were there have been addressed. Um, so we would recommend approval despite the fact that that uh that fire review in the uh staff report still has comments on there. So just wanted to make that clear just in case there was any confusion. Um, but again, we would we would recommend approval of this plat as it does meet all the requirements of the city code and all of our staff comments have been addressed.

Perfect. Thank you, Royce. All right. This is uh this item is open for public hearing. So, in the same way that we treated the public comment, we will open this particular item for public hearing. If you have uh business or comments that need to be made on this, um please come forward, state your name, address, and uh please limit your comments to three minutes or fewer.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh I'm Bryce Wilcox. Uh, our family owns the property just north that was referred to the farmland up there, excuse me. Um, I came to the planning commission when they did the open house or the zoning change a few months ago. Not opposed to the development, but we made a request at that point that was acknowledged by the planning commission of we needed access into our property because of the way it's developed. Um, the way the city laid out 3000 West with the roadway alignments, there is no access off of 3000 West to our property, uh, without taking out a home. Um, there's no access off of 700 South without taking out a home. There's no access to the east without going through the Briggs family farm. And for everybody that's worked with the Briggses, they're not interested in selling anytime ever if you talk with them. Um and so we're have no access. While yes, it meets the minimum requirements of the city, uh we don't believe it actually, uh addresses the need for the development on the site. The Syracuse city code 8.1 8.10.70 10.70 says relating to adjoining street systems as it talks about the minimums for the the 1320 ft between um access points and that to meet the minimum. says in the second paragraph, "The street arrangement must be such as to cause no unnecessary hardship to owners of adjacent property when they plat their land or seek to provide convenient access to it. Where in the opinion of the planning commission, it is desirable to provide for street access to adjoining property, proposed street shall be extended and dedicated to the property boundary of such property. So yes, it it meets the minimum requirements, but I believe it brigates a hardship for our property. We have 20

acres up there, which if it develops similar to this, could have approximately 55 lots. Uh with a single access going in, uh would be limited to fire code access, which is what they were told about 30 if I remember right. So you've essentially cut our property value in half by only providing one access. I believe it's a hardship if we have to buy a home from a non-family member or something to come out 3000 West or on to 700. Uh we don't have control over those. So there's no way that we can we can purchase a home to to have access. So, all we're asking is the same comment that was addressed at the public comment hearing for the reszone was that a second access be provided um a viable second access to our property. And we believe, at least I believe looking at this, taking out lot 35 and extending the roadway on the east meets that requirement um so that we don't no longer have a hardship on our on our property. So, thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Do we have any other public comments for this item? All right. Uh, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing for this item and we will bring it back to the commission. Um, do we have the developer for this here? Lindsay Ne with Perry Homes.

Thank you. Um does any does anybody in the commission I'll defer to you first for any questions that we have for the developer? First question is could you just give us some feedback on the possibility of this access?

Yeah. Um I had made contact with BR Bryce. He communicated his concern. Um, we do meet the legal requirements for receiving preliminary plat approval. Um, the access is similar to the access that we had to comply with south of our property line. We do have an access point to him. Um, we communicated that we'd be willing to work with him on a separate agreement. um no different than development that we've done in other jurisdictions in which as a development in order to develop you do have to deal with the costs of pro providing access. So the offer that was made to Bryce is that we'd be willing to consider that access point if he'd be willing to purchase that lot and access to that from that portion as well as the cost that would require the roadway to be extended in that area. I have a question.

Yeah. What is the market value of that lot 35 and would you be willing to make any concessions to allow for that increased access? Um we put it at market value. So we're happy to go through that process in consideration of that. Um again we meet the legal requirements for a preliminary plan to go through on all code elements. So we would ask to receive approval based upon the fact that we meet all those requirements. We're happy to negotiate in the future moving forward with m uh Mr. Wilcox on what that cost would be, but we would be looking at a market cost. So you haven't a pre previously tried to come to some agreement as to correct price or if that's an option that you may consider.

Correct. And you didn't purchase this property from We did purchase the property from uh the Birch family, which I understand are cousins of the Will Cox family. And they're currently using just your one driveway access to 3000 West as their current one access point to their property

to to our property. They have access through their family members north of us. to their property. They already have access through their family members that are all along 3000 West to their piece of the property that's immediately north of us. So, we are not landlocking them. They are not landlocked. We are stubbing a road to them and they have access through their family members homes and property along 3000 West. Okay. All right. We have any other any other question?

Uh, and as a separate question, so a 3000 West does have a bike lane on there. Your access is going to provide there. Is that you planning on changing the striping to take out the to modify that? We're going to comply with the city standards on anything that's required along 3000 West. Okay. All right. If there are no other questions at this time, we'll Thank you. Yeah,

we'll pull this back to the commission for com uh nursing and uh making a motion. Um I do have a quick question for Colum. Um what I from the standpoint of everything meeting the code, I I understand that we're kind of meeting the bare minimum and that's that's fine. Sometimes that's what we have to deal with. Um, I do have a question like what would we be up against if we did require that there be some additional concession as far as uh requiring a second access point?

If we require an access point that is not required by our ordinances, that would be a taking uh would require reimbursement for that. I suspect we would pass that cost along to the Willoxes, which would in in in effect be the same as the cost of them buying the lot to begin with. Okay. All right. And Roy says, you have this map up. Um, just show me the piece of property where there this planned development is going in and then where the Willox have access.

Yep. So it essentially is this section here. Um and then the property that we're talking about the north is here. So just just to be clear uh again that that uh section of the code that I just pulled up that was that was quoted earlier uh also requires the 7.5 seconds of travel distance which uh to separate from the center line to the center line of a new adjoining street. Um, and that's just for safety issues. So, to get access to this property, they they technically do have this here, but there's there's really no way to get access get a road there without a variance. Um, there's a 385 ft uh separation required. So, in order to get access there, oh, that's on miles. I need feet. There we go. So, in order to get access there, I mean, it just there's no no way to do that without the variance. This this property actually just barely met that 385 ft separation and is kind of right in the middle of these two streets. So, um yeah, so it it's already fairly limited. There's going to have to be some other sort of agreement or something done with surrounding property owners in order to develop this property. I keep thinking of I mean there's that code and the word in there is unnecessary hardship. doesn't necessarily say that it says no hardship and uh I it sounds like they're providing what they can reducing the hardships but that doesn't mean that we have to we can't provide perfect uh in both situations

right

unfortunately this is one of those situations where you know compromise where fortunately uh you you have to be able to make a decision that way. Um being as though we have the legal requirement to to pass because of that. I don't I don't really see I sympathize absolutely but I don't really see a way that we can require um it especially since the cost go eventually be passed on regardless at that point. Um, to me it sounds like from where we are now, from where we would be from a legal standpoint, the cost could be potentially worse for both the city and not to mention precipit. So, as much as you know, as much as I sympathize for the for the situation that that we're seeing for the the Willox, I I don't know that, you know, legally we can say or do anything.

Is there as the Briggs have they have two access points? You pull up the plot. Is there I I mean there might be a way to change that north one so that instead of going to the Briggs eastward, it goes north and so that lot 35 becomes a lot between 36 and 47 essentially lot 35 to

Yeah. to that roadway because that that would provide it to the brrigs where they would have um you know connecting on both of those. But then it would also provide two access I I don't know if you're waiting for feedback from us, but Oh, yeah. Um,

sound like you were planning on the spot

talking over here. Yeah. Um, so in terms of this the block standard, again, we measure from center line. That's what we were doing just now. Um, of course this isn't the most specifically scientific, but we wanted to get an idea. So 1320 would be roughly here. So pretty much all the way across the property. So yeah, if you moved that axis, um, if this access was scooted over here or over there, um, I mean, yeah, it doesn't doesn't really matter. I I would have to probably measure specifically. I I'm eyeballing it. It's probably okay here. But if the planning commission was to recommend moving this access over, I would want that to be

Sorry. No, it sounded like he's moving the east access. Yeah.

Oh, I see. Okay. And so lot 47. I see. I see. I misunderstood that. That's fine, too. That's the same same idea, though. Yeah. is this this arrangement. You've got the north the street that runs to the east butts onto the um Briggs's property which I think it'll be a cold day and you know where before they let a subdivision on that property. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the street go straight east in my mind. Um, but may maybe maybe the developer knows something I don't about the Briggs. I have similar, you know, just that street comes to a dead end, you know, for possible future development. But if we worked with everybody and had that become a lot somehow and just have that road go straight through We're I'm we're just looking for options to try to balance this a little bit

due to the confidence. Um yeah, I guess the the points that have been brought up, I'm assuming, put us in the exact same position of just flat out saying you have to do something different, right?

Yeah. and any anything that we recommend will have consequences. If we provide two to the north, then the brrigs get one. And if you look at the concept plan, the east west circulation for future uh if you look at that entire block, the location of that roadway, uh and if you go back to the aerial, uh if if we look at east west circulation through that block right north of the temple, we anticipate that there's there'll be a need a road a need for a road right there.

But it it isn't uh necessarily a collector road. Um, but it would just make it if you were going east west, you would have to zigzag through the neighborhood at a mid mid block. I I would uh you know, this is a last second on the-fly change to a plan. Um, I would I would recommend checking in with the developer and sometimes when you make last second changes, we want to study out any, you know, with if there's any thing with fire concerns or engineering concerns before we make last second changes all over the dis.

Right. And coming from a former resident of Roy City, uh, loved living in Roy for the many years I did, uh, the zigzagging through neighborhoods is something I was familiar with. It is a pain in the butt. So, I don't necessarily think that something that we would want to start doing either. So, um, I guess the question is is I mean, we can we can definitely ask the developer. That's why she's here. Um would you mind? Okay.

Um what what kind of um thought process has gone into the the proposal of potentially moving that road instead of going east going?

Yeah, I don't have the plan specifically in front of me, but we did look at not having one of those roadways go through on a previous submitt. I don't remember the exact comments, but it did put us in a compromised position relative to other code sections. So- which is why we added it back in um as it relates to that east to west major transportation corridor that was anticipated and again um we're happy to continue working with adjacent property owner. Um we just know that it's a cost of development. We we had hoped to try and get access through the bricks property as well. It would have made things a little bit easier for us as well and we understand the difficulty as it relates to just trying to make access work. So, know that we are immeable. We still have to go through a final plat and and work through things. I'm communicated to Bryce we'd be willing to sit down and and take a look at that. We're even willing to hold on the development of those three lots just out of consideration to try and come to a conclusion that would be beneficial. So, um but at this time we would look for um moving forward in the process.

And when you say the three lots, that's 34, 35, and 36. Yeah. because it would be difficult, right? If we are anticipating traffic going through there, it wouldn't make sense for us to contemplate starting homes or anything in those areas until we actually figured out what would be happening on lot 35. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, quick question about um, sorry, was there a comment? Uh, you did you want me to go or you want to go?

Uh, I I I just have a question about lots and so please go. I was going to add that this is a preliminary plat. Um we do still have a final plat process and I forget how many phases there are and which phase that this area of interest is in. Um there it's common to make some minor adjustments between preliminary and final and it could give the developer and the team some time to evaluate what that change would really do on that that northeast corner. And you know uh that that's my comment is just we we do still have one remind you we do still have one more step in the approval process

right and that was well this I do have a question about lot 35 as well with that if lot 35 was the only uh lot that would have to be negotiated does it leave enough space for a road to be stepped in and retain lot 35 No, no, no, no. If if lot 35 was changed to the to the stubbed road, um would would they have to cut into lot 34 and 36 at all or is there plenty of room for that? Oh, no. There's plenty. They would be left over that they would have to add to either side. Yeah, 60 feet is the standard rideway width. I think that lot's probably over 100 feet or

92 feet wide. Okay, just want to double check. You'd have you'd have 118 and then the width of the road you could get two lots. Cool. But that would probably make lot 34 a little bigger, right? You know, transport I agree, you know, with what Noah pointed out with going through there, but you know, this is just a local road. We're not most of the people are just going to go east west out to 2,000 or 3,000. Uh, and it's not a whole lot of zigzagging. In fact, it's kind of nice would be a more of a traffic calming where you don't have people racing between 30,000 and 2,000.

Um, probably prevent additional vehicles from coming into the neighborhood. They don't have a direct shot through. So, um I would be in favor of of making that change uh just or at least seeing the change and I'm I'm okay moving forward with the preliminary plat knowing that that's an option.

Well, Mr. Chair, I'll also point out uh for these midblock roads um and there are quite a few in the city that we've kind of had uh chopped and so on. So, like for example, this one is like fantastic and then boom, just stops, right? So, there's a lot of these these midb block roads that if you're in a car, it's not that big of a deal because you can just drive around and it's fine. But if you're a kid on a bike, if you're going to school, uh WFRC, the Wasad Front Regional Council, they've they've been really big on trying to make sure that we have as many kind of cross access spaces as possible because again, there's more road users than just automobiles and a lot of them are not old enough to drive even if they wanted to. So, All right. Um, I think we've had a fair amount of listeners on this.

I I've got one more question. Yeah. Uh, Royce, would it be city council that makes a decision as to the appropriate amount of access for a neighborhood or is that the the fire marshall or who makes that call when that code is written? Uh, oh, in terms of writing the code itself, yeah, that' be city council. Okay. So, would it be appropriate to if we if we pass this, would it be appropriate to give some kind of counsel to uh the city council maybe take steps in the future and re-evaluate the number of access points necessary to see if that is still a consistent uh situation that we have or if it needs to be reevaluated.

Yeah. Yeah, that' be something to want to pass on to the city council uh leazison on. This is kind of a looking into it rather than a actionable requirement. Yep. All right. If we don't have any other comments or concerns or points to be brought up, we can take a motion. Let me ask a question first. So, can we move that the flat be preliminary approval be granted with an understanding that that northeast corner in or northeast portion needs to be re-evaluated or

that again? as it was stated there there we do still have a final file and as Noah didn't point out um there will that will leave plenty of time hopefully for a negotiation to happen between copen okay um like I said this is I I I've in the years that I've been on the planning commission I've seen a few situations like this come up where unfortunately there there isn't a whole lot we can do without necessarily opening ourselves up to new issues and setting precedents that we don't necessarily want set for either ourselves or future planning.

Are you ready for it? Yeah, it we'll we'll take a motion at any time at this point. Okay. Unless there's more additional comments,

I'll I'll take steps. Then with this Bing, a preliminary plat, I move the planning commission approve the request for the approval of a preliminary plot called um Falcon Landing located approximately 875 South, 3000 West. and the subdivision comp comprises approximately 19.7 acres in the R2 zone with a a request that they do look at that um north south access or east west at 30 lots 34 35 and 36. We have a motion. Commissioner Garner, do we have a second? Second.

Okay. All in favor? I I I Are there any opposed? All right, motion will pass. Thank you. Thank you everyone. We do appreciate hearing from you.

Next item on the agenda tonight will be a public hearing for revised site plan by Heather Llewellyn uh for Take Five Oil at the atro approximately 3062 West 1700 South. So, we saw this one last year. Um, it's essentially the same thing. They just widen the building by about 10 feet. Uh, so that just triggered the requirement to come back because it changes some of the architecture and and uh the site layout. So, um the the function of the building is the same. The the site layout is is also functionally the same. Um, we just had to work out a few details in terms of uh just making sure that what was added met the requirements of the code, which it does. Um, it's I don't know if you could really tell looking at the two drawings. There is a difference because it is a little wider, but that's that's it. Um, it did push the sidewalk here out just a little bit further. Um, they moved this to align with that. Uh, we shifted the dumpster slightly. The bike parking was moved a little bit, so we moved it up here instead of down here. just to make sure that it had enough space around it to meet our code requirements. Um, other than that, all the lighting and the landscaping and the parking and and access and everything are the same. Um, so where this one was pretty minimal, um, we did not have architectural review on this one. Um, if there was a significant change in the architecture, would have taken it to them. Um, but decided based on how minimal it was that it it was functionally the same as as what was approved before. But per the code, we do have to come back here. So, uh, but again, uh, this does meet all the requirements of our code. All the staff comments are addressed. We'd recommend approval.

Thank you, All right. This also is open for a public hearing tonight. So, if you have comments, concerns that need to be brought up for the commission, please step up to the microphone, state your name and address. Your comments will be heard. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and uh close public hearing for this. And um I'm assuming the developer this one is we have a representative here for this. Do we? I guess not. Then we'll bring it back. Um this is the one that's just across the street from uh Costco, right?

The north side. Oh, yeah. To the north. I mean, it's to me

the only thing that's kind of weird is if you come in pull into the take five oil and you don't go through the building, you can't really turn around very easily. Uh, so you're kind of there's no cross access to go to the exit. Uh, and it does have landscaping through there. So, they will have to kind of turn around and go out the entrance. I don't know if there's enough space there that I mean, it's not going to be a heavy traffic spot, but I that caught my attention that it was kind of weird. There's no cross access between them.

Yeah, there isn't an escape lane. I We did discuss that with the original approval. They said they've got signage up here and there's going to be paint and things like that. So, hopefully it's not really an issue. I guess if it is just 20 point turn it out. I don't know. Have to figure it out. I think I have a depending on how big your vehicle is.

I think I have a similar concern with the dumpster. Um so your trash truck would have to either back out completely out of that area or turn around uh in your parking lot there. So I don't know if that's something that's considered if the uh applicant is required to reach out to the trash provider. Oh yeah. So we we do consider like the angle of access. Um our thing is essentially making sure that the trash is able to back in or I guess pull forward, however they they access the trash. Um so yeah, there there is enough room there for the truck to get in and and back out. Um given the site constraint, there really wasn't another location where they could get the trash in there and still have it accessible and then also still be able to meet all their other requirements of the code. So, it's it's kind of pinned in where it is.

I live in a culde-sac with a lot of uh younger drivers that park on the street and those are our uh our trash collectors are very very skilled. They do

comments additional. If there are none, we'll take a motion. Chair, I make a motion that the planning commission approve the request of Heather Dwellan for the approval of the site plan amendment for the take five oil project located at approximately 3062 West 1700 South. Site plan comprises approximately.991 acres in the GC zone. Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor?

Sorry, the acreage was stated incorrectly. You stated the Dutch Brothers acreage on that. Oh, you did. It should be the 71 for take five. The.991 is for Dutch Brothers. Oh, no. No, N91 is Okay. Well, then the uh the notice in the agenda was wrong. My mistake. One of the two is wrong. Okay. We're referring to these guys. I apologize. What's the Thanks for catching that. Yeah, correct number is gonna Hold on. Let me check on it. Good catch. Thank you. Was a contradiction there. Oh, of course. I saw that as well. We were looking at the motion language. Yeah. Yeah. Let me pull up the application real quick. I apologize for that.

I don't know what the proper protocol to stop that is, but No, no, it's a good Yeah. And of course, my he's while he's looking that up, I'll just add that the motion doesn't necessarily have to have the acreage in it. So, but it we do want to make sure we're accurate, right? We're all talking about the same property, right? Yeah. I mean, when we adopt the when we adopt on the next meeting, it needs to be accurate. So

he's looking on the application. So it's 0.71 acres. Okay. Would you like to amend your thing or I'll I'll amend the motion to reflect 0 7 71 acres. Okay. And we have a second. Second. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.

I apologize. I'm waiting for my uh my system to refresh and it's taking it is taking up sweet time. Our next item uh item number six is excuse me for the Dutchboro site plan located at 2175 West South. And this one is.95. Yes.

Yep. Um All right. So, this uh this one is going to be just west of the uh the waffle stop over here. And there's I guess there's a couple of exercise places in the rush and so on, but on the south side of 1700. So, uh currently, so the propertyy's larger. We don't see this super often, but every so often we we'll see a site that's just part of an existing parcel, uh, which is legal and fine. They can do that. Um, but usually they'll end up subdividing things later on. So, excuse me. The, uh, the drive-thru here, you'd have access off of Analopee and then people would come through and then just pull back out onto Analopee. Uh, there's there's a left turn available, so it's going to be both left and turn and right access. There's also the trail out here. And then we've got pedestrian access. This is one that's in the town center, um, which we don't see too many of those. So, there are some different requirements for the town center, like pulling the building further forward, uh, having a wall to, uh, kind of shield the parking and and some pedestrian lighting and things like that. So, uh, what's been provided here uh is, uh, just the result of, I guess, a lot of discussion. We went through back and forth uh trying to make sure everything met the code for the town center which is just more intensive. But we go to the elevations. Um the where where it is parked I guess for for people to visit there there really is an indoor uh seating area. this part of this uh the the seating area is outdoor but it is under a trellis which we consider to be part of the building somewhat because of its function. So um but we don't anticipate probably a lot of people uh driving over and sitting in the trellis area but where there's a lot of uh

traffic on the on the trail we anticipate that people would be coming in off of that side. So um anyway so that's that's what it looks like. Um just lots of fiber cement board and uh kind of this cultured stone and then metal elements. Uh as far as the landscape plan goes, we've had some questions about that from from folks calling in go down to I guess first of all while I'm here the phototric plan. They do have some lighting. It's minimal lighting. Uh the code requires that there are zero foot candles at all property lines which they have. Um, we've we've uh as part of the the architectural review committee uh review, they they noticed that there was a light back here and requested that that be moved forward and they ended up moving it up to here. So, they they had a pull light in the back that's been moved forward to accommodate not getting light back there onto the residential properties. Um, and then the landscape plan. So, we we require uh two buffers in this case. There's a buffer against Analopee Drive where it's an arterial road. So they they meet that requirement. And then also they're up against uh the residential here and commercial against residential is pretty intensive buffer. Lots of trees and shrubs. And then there's also a 6ft concrete wall that's pre-cast stone pattern required. So all of that has been shown here as well. And that's going to go along the entire parcel. So even across this future development area because they anticipate that to be commercial as well in the future. So should take care of the buffer for that use. Um however I guess and I don't anticipate that happening. If the zoning changed to a more intensive type of zone use then the buffer would have to be amended but I I don't anticipate that. So um but uh yeah we we've gone through

architectural review committee on this one and they did provide those those recommendations. The recommendations uh have all been voluntarily met on this one. Um and they also have met all the requirements of the code and all staff comments have been addressed. So we would recommend approval.

Thank you Russ. Appreciate it. All right. This is also open for public hearing. So, we will open the public hearing again. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. If you have comments, concerns about this particular project, please step forward. For the record, please state your name and address. Uh, thank you. I'm Lance Garner. I uh own the property, me and my wife to the south of the new Dutch Brothers property. I appreciate the planning commission giving me the opportunity to speak, and I I appreciate Director Still showing me the uh the material so I could better understand this. Um under the buffer ordinance, our particular property obviously is single family residential which um uh borders the commercial property which is actually what I guess they call a buffer D which it was stated earlier is a 15 ft uh buffer with a 6ft pre-cast um wall. If you look around Syracuse, most of the commercial property that borders single family residential, they are not a fast food restaurant. um a lot of a lot of buildings where you see the backside of the wall. So a six-foot concrete wall is probably sufficient. But imagine my situation. A sixft wall is no taller than I am. And I and that's the height of the of the fence that's there now. And the whole point of that buffer is to help prevent noise and um you know uh odors and every lots of different things. And just imagine you living in my place and you're going to hear about every 30 seconds, can I take your order? Because that 6ft wall is really not going to do a whole lot. So what I am asking the planning commission to consider and it does state here that the planning commission may make a recommendation to alter the elements of of of the property uses. So, I'm asking uh the planning commission to consider an 8ft wall, which is the next uh level, I guess I'll call it, of the type of

buffer. Um, so if you would please consider changing that to an 8ft wall, I think that would significantly help us to reduce the noise and having to hear can I take your order about every 30 seconds. The other thing too is I don't I cannot tell from the plat here where they actually order from. Would it be nice if that speaker was not pointing directly at our house? Um, if that's something they can consider, I would also appreciate that as well. Um, finally, one thing I would like to at least uh make mention of, and I don't know it'll make much of a change, but when they sold this property, do told me and several others that this property was landlocked. They said that because of the design requirements, um, this being a category 5 uh state road that This property was landlocked because you the entrances had to have a 350 foot minimum spacing between entrances. If you look at this, I don't see where that 350 is is being met. It looks closer to me like 300 ft. And I'm wondering if the planning commission or uh the planners have taken a look at that. I understand this is UD do U Dott's road they control that not necessarily the city but you know right on their excuse me right on their own website when they were selling this property it said no access do cannot grant access this landlock this is landlock parcel I don't know how much clearer it gets than that so I don't know how UD do was able to even sell this property and allow that access uh road to the input put in place thank you Thank you.

329 a month or buy50.

I'm Rob Hullbrook. I live at 2204 West 1780 South. I'm just at the um southwest corner. And I also have another piece of property that borders the west. I have a concern about the wall not going up the west side. Um there's a rental house there also. Yeah, if you can see it right there. Yeah, that's the rental house. So that's going to be impacted by noise also. So I would like to see that retention or that retaining wall go all the way down. that whole west side. I think we would have an issue with people trying to pull in their driveway meaning to go into the Dutch Brothers. And then also I have a huge concern about water runoff. Um, that property slopes to where the water runs to the southwest corner and I'm right below that. My house, it will run right into my backyard and I have a garage in the back and it will run right through the door of that and flood that out also. And I didn't see anything as far as what they were going to do with their wastewater. I know there's no um piping back there to provide runoff for them. So, and I didn't see a retention pond or anything on their site plan

and that's my my issue with it. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

How's everybody doing today? Uh my name is Randy Cordova. I live at 2188 West uh which is just to the west side of Lance Gardener and um I share the same concerns as far as the retaining wall. Uh would recommend hopefully an 8ft wall to prevent any noise. I'm glad to see that the light itself was moved further in. We we get lots of light already from uh Walmart. And the other concern that I have again also as Rob stated is the the water. Where is all that water from the uh all that uh concrete or whatever the driveways are going to be? Where does all that water go to? as my property is just on that one corner as well. And um that property is significantly higher than our homes. Correct. So that water's going to come in into our property. So uh please take a look at that. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody online that can come up? I heard somebody kind of overt talking a little bit. I don't have any requests. Um, but if anybody would like to speak online, um, just raise your hand in the raised hand. Yeah, I don't Yeah, I don't I guess I can't see you. Raise your hand, but yes, uh, the button. I don't see anybody though. But if if something does come up, I will let you know.

Thank you. All right. And um seeing no other comments, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing for this item. Um do we have the developer or um request?

Thanks, James. Um my name is Logan Johnson with Right Development. We're in Centerville, Utah. Um I'd be happy to address some concerns or comments um or just take questions from you. whatever you'd like, James. Um, I I well, I welcome all the input and uh I if you want to address the comments that have been brought up, I'm sure the commission will have some questions for you as well.

Yeah, thank you. Um, on the buffer type D that exists in the city code. Our position is um more wall and more tree is always better in the eyes of residents. I live close to a commercial center and I recognize that. Um, however, we believe that the city's ordinances were carefully put together over a number of years and I think they've been amended once or twice to consider different situations and we think that the buffer type D that's specified in the code is sufficient. I don't know the latitude that's given to planning commission to increase that in the code. From our reading, it was pretty clear-cut what's required, the six foot fence and the 15oot setback. But our position would be that um that it is it is sufficient and was well analyzed over years of development in the city. Um regarding Rob's comments, um the water runoff first, uh I think you had that this drainage plan up there Royce earlier. So with the area on the left, catchment 4, where you can see that on the bottom left, that property would behave as it historically has. We weren't proposing any improvements directly in there. Um, however, in catchment area one, all the water on the asphalt would be gathered at catch basins through grade. You can see those small 2.4 and 1.9% grades showing that the site would slope back to the Dutch Bros. and then it would hit the detention system which includes a small basin on the north end of the property with just a little bit of uh concavity. I don't know the right word for that.

Thank you. Um and so I believe that compared to historic norms, what it's doing now, most probably twothirds of the water that would run off site is now being captured and managed through an engineered storm drain system. Um, I think with catchment area 4, it would continue to operate as it does now with just less runoff coming from the other sides. Um, with the sewer line, Rob, I think you mentioned the sewer line, we were able to make grade the building can flow to the street up at Analopee successfully. And then on the wall along the west side, and maybe Rob, you and I need to chat after this meeting. Um, we had Rob, I think you and I spoke back maybe a year ago when we acquired this piece. So totally right. U DOT did have a a statement on their property that that they were not granting access along with the purchase of the property. We sat down with the engineers a number of times, talked about the specific constraints here and if one could work out uh before we acquired the property and um UD do always says no to everything to start and then um they'll look a little closer and so we're confident UDOT will grant access as shown here. We've had a number of meetings with region one and um and we're confident they'll grant gr grant access. We don't have the access approved yet. I think we had a a meeting call it two weeks ago staff don't remember which staff member was there but uh you do seem positive on that. So we're we're confident that we can get access on the road and it will meet their um access protocol requirements. Um and then on the wall on the on the west side, we anticipated Rob granting cross access over there. uh there had been discussion maybe years down the road if there was a joint development that this area could be combined with property call it 10 years plus down the road. So we were just trying to be cognizant of future development rather than throwing up a wall that may need to be torn down. We are if the planning

commission feels so inclined you could make a recommendation or an approval with a condition that the wall go up the west side and we would comply with that unless of course the whole Brooks wanted that cross access. So, we're we're good either way and and we were anticipating that being a a long-term situation. But, um, with that, I think that's all the notes I took. Happy to answer any other questions that you guys might have

with that discussion with you DOT. Did any changes along Analopee as far as that left turn lane? Are you required to put up any median? Uh, just because that it's not meeting access requirements. Um, is that turning into a right in, right out? Yes, I believe their strict access requirements are 375 as was mentioned, but they have a system that we've utilized on a number of properties which is a conditional access permit where they can make small variations based on spe sight specific analysis. So this site there's been no discussion of a median in analopee dot was not requiring that nor were they requiring additional drop lanes maybe just some change in striping if that answers your question. What's your anticipated traffic through a Dutch Brothers given a peak you know in the morning I think most people are getting coffee at 6:00 in the morning 6:00 to 8 a lot of orders being at that time that had that discussion about where the speaker was headed and then

are we 100 cars thousand cars you know I would Scott I'd love to pontificate and guess I should have had that ready I don't know the exact numbers um uh for those traffic counts. UD do of course has analyzed that. That was part of our submitt to them and they've they've looked at that in a number of other sites. So I don't have that tonight. I apologize. But I think you're right in the assumption that peak times would be uh morning I think is their their strongest time and then another smaller peak in the evening. And and as far as the location of the speaker, where is that?

Um I sorry I didn't write that down. Sorry about that. Um, I believe the speaker is um is where that was it Lance? Sorry. Uh, where Lance does not want the speaker to be. I think it's in the there's a couple and I think there's one that's right there. Um, that secondary Mr. Chair. Yeah, I can just interject. This is just uh from ARC. It was explained that so they've got a menu board here, but there is no speaker in these menu boards. So, the speakers they they actually don't do speakers until up here. I guess there's like a musical speaker, but otherwise I guess they have staff that walk out uh even in inclement weather and take your order from your car. So, wow, voice, you deserve a raise. Thank you.

Chick-fil-A. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In our in our experience, you know, we've done a number of sites that adjacent to residential properties and we've done some sound studies before and landscaping really does have a significant impact on some of the um those those concerns. So, we're hopeful that the 15 foot buffer can also make a significant impact on the uh dampening of the negative impacts to the neighbors. But thanks, Royce. Remind me again on the property to the west. Is that commercial right now? And we would they would not be required to buffer that.

I don't have service. I don't think it's commercially zoned right now. Yeah, it's residentially zoned currently. So, as far as the buffer goes, uh, so I guess there's two points on the buffer. The first one, well, maybe I'll answer this question first. So, we we require buffers where the site is improved. Um, if the commission feels that we need to buffer along this western side, we need to have justification for that buffer. Um, because this area is not going to be improved. So, uh, we also if if we were to change recommend a change of the height, that is something that would have to be approved by the city council on a case-byase basis.

And, you know, Yeah. Anyway, happy to answer other questions. Are there any other questions for

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, we'll bring it back to commission. I guess the last one. I I think I see the bike parking. That is that those two little black dots uh right there kind of it is. I'm trying to remember off top of my head where it's uh I want to say they got them up here. North of the the dumpster. I think is that that's where the two dots I thought were like 35. There it is. Yep. Yep. Wow. Okay, that is correct. I was looking for like a sign, but it wasn't until like I Same here. I was looking for number 35. I couldn't

And then Royce, for clarification, any height adjustments on the fence would go to city council as a recommendation. Correct. Yep. And I'll just Let's see. I had it open. Do you know the height of uh the what's what's the barrier between the two properties to the the commercial to the east? Is that uh commercial to commercial? doesn't have a buffer currently. It doesn't have anything.

Yeah. So, it just be the back wall of that building. Um, so the buffer code, just to read the actual section here, it says, yeah, any alter any alteration to the standard buffer buffer yard requirements, which would include the fence in this case, shall be approved by the city council. So, if you wanted to recommend something like that, you could. Um, but that would then have to go to city council to be approved. But we would be that would be talking specifically about making a change to the ordinance, not necessarily to the site plan, right? Uh it's it would be a case by case change to the buffer specifically for this site plan. So uh cases where if we did that a site plan would actually go to

right. Yep. And it would just be that that particular aspect. So that item Oh yeah. I I I would also just bring up that um last year and I believe the year before um we went into some heavy discussion about buffers and it came up specifically because of um the West Davis corridor

and we we we didn't just discuss our buffer changes for the corridor. we discussed our buffer changes all around and while I can like I said I can sympathize with with the situation here that that that was kind of heavily discussed as well during those time and those conversations as well. It it seems to me that looking at the placement or orientation of the speaker or even the volume of the speaker would be a lot easier of a change than building a new wall and changing code and all this other mess. Can we just ask that Dutch Brothers

did something about maybe the volume or I mean surely there's things that can be done with that so it's just not blurring right in the back window of the neighbors. I I would agree with that because there should be a certain decel that's allowed and the manufacturer of the equipment should be able to tell us what the rated decibel is for the

Yeah, I think and and Royce, maybe I missed it when you said that. So, Dutch Bros confirmed and now that Royce mentions this, uh it's coming to my memory, they don't have any speakers on the south side. They have menu boards and occasionally employees like at Chick-fil-A where they'll go out and take your order, but there's no speakers there. Instead, the speakers would only occur 50 ft north up against the building where they would sort of be direct towards the commercial to the east. And so, um, I don't know if if that resolves the concern you had, Blake, but I mean, it it it sounds like you're you're doing what you can. And this my initial thought was Dutch Brothers always has lots of employees wandering around, but they don't have microphones. They're just speaking directly into the I think that's right.

So, they're not going to be creating a lot of noise themselves. It would just be that that one at the window speaker, right, that you said is been moved away. That's correct. Yeah. And so I think there are there is mitigation in place. I'm not going to pretend that they're not going to notice that there's a a Dutch Bros as their neighbor, but I think there are some mitigation efforts in place uh assumed in this site plan. Um so a question on this site plan. Um the fence and the buffer that's along the south property line is that only for the improved area and then that portion there to the uh southwest.

Yeah. And again I like I mentioned so they've they've shown it going across the whole thing and that would be voluntary beyond this point. So if they decide to improve this that's really nice of them. But, uh, again, with the with the request to approval on this section, there's not really a again, we would need like a a rational nexus, right? Like a a good reason for why we're doing that. Okay. And acknowledging that they're they're doing a good thing with that. Would we have anything in the code that would allow us to either require them to develop the entire site or do a lot line adjustment to split up the developed area?

We don't. Now, that would be a situation where we would be telling a property owner what they have to do with the property, right? And established that there's no speaker, but does bring up an I the thought of that light the menu board is that's producing light. Is that part of that lighting analysis? If it's I mean that's I don't know how bright those are. If there's how how late are they open? Yeah. Are people getting coffee at midnight? I I don't know. I don't It's facing towards the

Yep. So, no, it's not. Yeah, the I'm I'm not sure exactly how these are lit necessarily. I don't believe it's back lit, but that is a good point. We want to make sure that we don't have side lighting. And it is something that if if they did install something that was directed sideways, like horizontally into the neighbors property, they just can't do that. So, excuse me. So, if that did Excuse me. goodness. If that did come up and they decided to install something that was that was causing a light trespass, that would become a code enforcement issue. So that would be is uh what's the height of that menu board? Is it below six feet?

That is what I was looking for here on the plans. I I don't see a plan for the menu board. Um, a lot of times the signage is not specifically included, though. It has a reference to uh architectural on here, but I'm not seeing it. So, the the signage isn't necessarily required to be included in a site plan approval, which is again why we're here. Um, but if you would like to see that, if that's something that's important to the commission, that would be something we'd want to table it and uh have them come back another time. My understanding is they're probably similar to what's on here from if I recall from the architectural review committee meeting. There's a similar size and height to what's shown here. Um, but I I that would be an assumption. I that's based on my best memory from the meeting.

For the purpose of clarification, like what what what are you where's your question going? Well, you've got the menu board faces south. Is that right? So you've got that buffer wall back there and the buffer wall is 6 feet tall in addition to vegetation in front of it. So it would have to be a pretty impressive sign I think to get through that to get through all that in addition to the operating hours of the business. I I don't see where that would be a real light issue unless they were intentionally you know straight out lights and trying to be a nuisance which I don't see being the case. Thank you. Well, we didn't expect that with Maverick either. on anote.

All right. If there if we have any other concerns, questions from the commission. I I would say that uh in the language, I would suggest or maybe we should ask the the developer directly if they would be willing to provide the buffer on the entire south side of the property, that southwest corner. We can't require it. It's in the landscape. Yeah, we our ask would be that it's approved as presented to you. So, we do have the buffer along the entire southern edge.

We weren't planning on the west, you know. Um again, my ask would be it's approved as as presented to you tonight and I believe it complies with code. Thank you for the clarification from staff. Um and then we're happy to have that chat with property owners and see if there's something that we can do. I don't want to be disingenuous. I don't anticipate we want to throw up a wall there um on the entire west side. I'm not saying the west side. I mean south the south side to the west corner is what I meant. Yes sides. Yep. That's in the plans on the plan. Yep. Absolutely. I was under the impression that maybe that was optional. Maybe I misunderstood. But no, Royce and I already arm wrestled and he won that one. So So as as shown on the plan, technically technically it is optional, but they're in good faith.

Okay. Well, and this is what we're presented to you tonight. So, that's what we're getting the site plan approved for because that western portion is not developed yet, but you would have the buffer there anyways. That's right. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Operation 11. All right. If there are no more questions or comments, we'll take a motion. I'll make a motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I move the commission approve the request by Logan Johnson for approval of a Dutch Brothers commercial site plan located at approximately 2175 West 1700 South. The proposed site comprises approximately.991 acres in the LC zone GC GC zone excuse me. Can we can we add the amend that to also include that they get UD do approval of the access? I know that's implied, but just want to make sure that that is part of the requirement to Yeah,

they have to get UD do access approved at UT access because this is a change to the to that access. It's one driveway to now a commercial driveway. So, is it is it contingent upon that or are we just requesting that they do that? I don't think that they can build if they don't have right. I mean, if they don't get UD do not let them, right? So, that's out of our hand, right? Like, that's UD do's decision, Colin. From a from a legal perspective on this, that's implied because you do will lower the hammer, right? Correct. If you do says no ice, then they're not going to develop that. Nothing's happening. Okay. If you feel comfortable,

we can we can I don't think we need to make a contingent on it, but Okay. All right. Uh, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All we have a second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Moving on to a public hearing for the preliminary request by Taylor Anderson approval of preliminary path of loan tree approach 963 South 2000.

Okay. So, so this is a property that was uh previously owned by the school district and was for years, which is why it was just an empty field. Um, so the uh the property then that well I guess there were kind of a series of events. We meet with the school district every year to analyze where growth is occurring and what's needed. And the term that they use is they wait for the whites of their eyes. So that lots of times they wait until schools are so over capacity that it's kind of untenable and then they will build a new one. They're trying to be as responsible as they can with public funding. And uh so with this one, it was anticipated for years that this would be an elementary school and they ended up not needing it. They built one down uh between what 27 3700 South on 2000 West. Uh there's a new elementary school going in there and that's negated the need for that.

Correct. So just also changes in demographics and bunch of other things. Um so uh the the property uh went to on on sale was purchased by the developer and then uh the city also got an option for purchase and determined that we may need in the future potentially a new fire station at some point in the distant future. Uh and so we're we're keeping this property here. And so the property is kind of coordinated together uh and and essentially we now have this uh single family subdivision that's proposed along with some property to be uh coordinated with the city. And then we also have this open space parcel here. There's this uh fantastic tree in the middle of the property we wanted to maintain. So, uh, through a process of study and and, uh, determination if the tree was healthy enough and so on, we we've worked that out. So, there will be this open space here. It's why those parcel lines are kind of shifted slightly. So, but what's proposed is essentially the same as what's out there. Um, this is an R3 zoning. Uh, but most of the lots are significantly larger than R3. Some of them are at the bare minimum here, like the 8,000. Some of them are quarter acre or more. So, it just depends on where you are on the property. Then again, there's going to be this large open space parcel that we're able to work with some property owners here that about 2,000 to by the back halves of their properties and add some new lots there. Uh provide some road connections. No connections to 2,000 um currently. And uh well, I guess not ever. It's not even going to connect out to 2000. I should clarify that. Um but yeah, just a pretty standard single family neighborhood with some open space. Um back it up a little bit more there. So you can see the tree layout here. The

detention is going to be in this open space parcel. And so we usually try and bring them as far to the southwest. Dutch Brothers was kind of an exception with the detention being where it was on the north side. But um with this one uh we we don't have any buffer requirements around what's surrounding it cuz single family access single family doesn't have that. Um so what's proposed here uh meets all the requirements of our code. Um also meets all requirements of the agreement the city created with the developer to maintain the tree and and workout access. So I really apologize. Must be dealing with allergies. Um, so the uh we would recommend approval though based on what was provided here.

All right. Thank you, Royce. Appreciate it. All right. This item is open for public hearing. So we will go ahead and open that. You have a comment concern about this particular item. We invite you to come up to the podium and be heard. Anybody online? Yeah, this is uh Kevin Bay. Um, how's everybody doing? I uh own the property at 1933 Heritage Parkway. That's uh directly north of uh parcel A. And I was wondering if somebody could tell me what parcel A will be used for.

Okay. All right. Thank you. You want me to answer that now? We'll we'll we'll come back to that. Okay. Yes, we'll we can answer that at the end of the public. Okay. I had a couple more questions, too. Um, right now, uh, around the perimeter or most of the perimeter, there's a chainlink fence. Uh, will that be tore down and a different type of fence be put up or is that on the homeowners when they start building back there? Sorry, I couldn't I understand it. You got it.

Okay. Um, all right. Any other questions? Yeah. My last question is if a fence does go up right now, the property line for the uh northwest corner of the property where parcel A is right there uh to the end of my property line is the three-foot gap if that fence comes down. Uh once again, is that on me to fill that gap or uh how will that be dealt with? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. We have any other comments? All right, we'll go ahead and close public hearing and we'll take it back to the commission. Um, let's go ahead and address those um real quick before we have any questions for the developer really fast. Um, do we have an answer on on those questions? We do.

Yeah. So, parcel A, that would be where the future fire station would be located that that parcel and the parcel to the west. So just kind of that whole that whole area. Um again, not immediately. We don't have any sort of immediate plans for that, but that is a potential use. Uh and then the the chain link fence out there. I I don't anticipate that we would bring that down uh along parcel A because that's not going to be improved right now. So uh I don't I don't think that's going to create any issues then there with that left over 3 ft. So, I would anticipate the fencing at that location would stay the same. Uh, we do require a a chain link fence where single family abuts, excuse me, abuts uh agriculture. So, that would essentially meet the buffer requirement we currently have. So, there's no real no real reason to change that at the m current moment.

Should the uh fire station eventually do happen, what's our buffer for the buffer requirement for the fire station to single family? Do we know? I mean it's not super importantly commercial. Sure. But what does the city what does the ordinance say? Yeah. Uh I don't think that there is a specific category for civic in the buffer. So we would have to decide what the closest categories are. Um I don't think I know an answer without having a minute to review the ordinance. Certainly, certainly. Like I said, I don't It's a future thing for us.

And I imagine the fire station would want something a little more substantial anyway than just a chain fence. Yeah. Like the last fire station we built is against the highway and there was a big concrete fence built, but I wouldn't necessarily commit to that right now cuz we have it's not even really I mean we don't have budget. We don't have a design. We don't really know, but we certainly want to be good neighbors when they build that that facility in the future. All right. Do we have the uh the applicant in the audience mind coming forward?

Taylor Anderson with Cole West out of Centerville. Um yeah, I'm happy to answer any of your questions. I think Royce covered that pretty well. Our plan is to just fence along the west side of parcel A and the north side of lot 21, I want to say. I can't see that, but I think it's 21. Um, and I think as of right now, we're planning to do a vinyl fence, but out outside of that, we're not providing a fence around the buffers of the single family. So,

and on 1775 West where you you make that connection to the temporary circle culde-sac, you've got in there that you'll you're uh demoing the existing curb and gutter and asphalt. So, you're putting straight fixing that so it's no longer a a circle. Yep. On both the both ends, both connections. Yep. Are you that right away? Is that being deed back to those properties? Is that on you? How just just so the city doesn't have to maintain somebody's front yard? Yeah, I believe my conversation with Noah that we're Yeah. Deed that back to those property owners. Okay.

So, that's and that's uh who who is who's the surveyor? Is that you or is that the city that's doing that? I'm not for sure on that yet. I haven't I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Sorry, what was the question? Who's who's changing those plats for existing homes where they're getting city right away back to those houses? Is that on the city to do that or is that on the Oh, I understand. Where the where the bulb out thing is? Yeah, we we would want to include all of that in the in as part of this subdivision. So, the city's not surveying anything. is the developer. So then yeah. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicants commission? Uh yes, this is Kevin May again just uh so I'm clear. So uh uh the north uh perimeter I appreciate I appreciate your comments. Um right now the public hearing uh portion of this item is closed. So unfortunately I apologize but we we are dealing with the commission with the campaign. Um, commissioners, any questions? Yeah,

I have a uh observation for Noan Royce. In the previous subdivision that we looked at tonight, the streets had the narrowing at the intersections, pedestrian safety, traffic control. This does not have that. What determines whether or not a neighborhood has that?

Yeah, we still we still require it. Um uh it's it's in our ordinance. In certain circumstances where you have because there's a narrowing and then there's a full width. If there's like five ft of full width and then it goes back down to a narrow and it's just zigzagging back and forth, it becomes a problem for snow plows. And so the city engineer in the last phase we we strategically there if I remember I thought that there were still some but maybe it it's been adjusted to because there's so many short runs of of streets but I could defer that to city engineer if he wants to add some color there.

Thank you. Yeah, I I do believe on the east and north entrances we still have that if you look close enough, but Okay. Thank you, T. Yeah. So, for the purpose of the traffic calming and how this worked out with the different circles and bulbs, there was really only the two locations and then since they were such short runs, it was almost like they were they were enlarged and then decreased and and did not make sense. So, okay. Thank you. I can see that being a nightmare. I think that was part of our original discussion. Y too.

I remember we went over that we were take we were discussing that ordinance. That was something that that was talked heavily about. Thank thanks for partners at that time too. All right. And part of that discussion I think with because the not parcel B where the tree is that's going to be an HOA maintained open space right space I think. All right. Uh questions, comments? Otherwise, we'll take a motion for this item.

Okay, chair, I'll make a motion. I move that the planning commission approved the request of Taylor Anderson for approval of a preliminary plaque called Lone Tree Subdivision located at approximately 963 South 2000 West, comprising approximately 13.395 acres in the R3 zone. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Garter. We have a motion, please. Can we have a I'm sorry to say it again, but can we amend that that the developer will be taken care of the rightway for those additional properties and we'll amend to allow that the developer takes care of the rightway for the surveying for the surveying of the for surveying and they're not part of their plat that's not part of the plot back to the All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. Second. All in favor? I. Any oppose? All right, motion passes. Moving on to item number eight. Uh, public hearing for preliminary plat request by Rick Peterson for approval of the preliminary plat for the Commons at Glenn Eagle at approximately 3,400 West, 1700 South.

Okay, so this one uh this isn't this is the other one where we had some issues with uh fire coming in and out. So, with our with a new fire marshal, he's provided uh finalized plans, which I'm going to pull up real quick. They're just showing a turnaround. Um my my understanding when I put the staff report together last week was that everything had been uh addressed, but there is a turnaround that still needed to be installed on the west side. So, I wonder if I can Nope. Can I put that in as a Okay. Well, I'm going to go down to the plat and kind of show you what I'm talking about. This is a commercial subdivision plat. So, Costco's here. The property, the take five we were just talking about here. So, it's just west of that. Um, got a couple of access points onto Analopee Drive. One's going to line up with the new road that is going here to access the Costco property. So, the turnaround would be here on this west end. Um, so let me go back over to that. Um, just appendix D of the fire code requires these turnarounds when you have any sort of end that's over uh, I believe 150 ft. And so because of that, I mean, it's significantly longer than that. They just needed to have a turnaround in there until this is all developed out. So we anticipate that uh, what's out there currently, I'll show you what's developed. What's out there currently will probably m be maintained. It's going to be all of this property heading all the way out here. So, got some residential to the west of it. There will be turnaround there. So, um so it will meet the requirements of the fire code. So, we won't have any issues with that. Um all other staff comments have been addressed and so we would recommend approval of this one.

And then just a quick question on this before public hearing. um this with with the change of the fire marshall and everything that we're that we're dealing with that is still potentially an issue. No, that addresses the issues. Okay. Okay. Just want to make sure it's clear on that. All right. This is open for this is this item is slated for the public hearing tonight, but rules the same for all uh as the previous public hearings. If you have questions or concerns about this item, please step forward and make your comments. Anybody online? Nobody.

With nobody coming forward, we'll go ahead and close public hearing on this and we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. And maybe to clarification, so on Analopee Drive, they are um making those improvements to widen Analopee to the to the general plan width and but then their access is actually behind. So they will not have driveway access onto Analopee, but they are still widening that or what

the you can see the the slashed area here is their rideway dedication. So they're going to going to be dedicating this 0504 acres. So that will essentially be Analopee. So their access will be directly onto Analopee. It's just they're going to be widening the road. Absolutely. And what's our general plan? This is this commercial. Is this like It feels like these are houses. No, this is this is commercial property, right? This is the one that we brought up uh late last year. Commissioner Anderson at the time was uh concerned about the golf balls.

Golf balls swinging into the uh into the building on the property at that time. I don't know if I believe I do believe that they actually were addressing that to to some extent as well producer set. All right. Uh do we is the applicant developer in the audience? 09 Mr. McBride online I think. Yeah, I'm here.

Okay. Um just for purposes of questions and concerns, does has any of the commissioners have questions regarding this for the developer? No. Maybe clarify. So what there's pavement in the back that's the fire but then to the front. So the what's the pavement cross access easement and there's also utility. So they got 20 27 ft access utility easement is all that shaded area. So that's going to be kind of their common cross access which would be required by our code

with potential drive every lot having its own driveway on analopee. No. So we would have the one access here and then there's going to be the other access here to analopee. The rest of them are going to be internally. Yeah. It sounded like they were each going to have their own right. Oh yeah. That's why I was like, "Yeah, you do would nyx that for sure." Thanks, do absolutely loving that. Well, when he said it because all the houses just to the west all have their own driveways. So, that's what like wait. Fair question.

All right. If there are no questions or additional concerns from the commission, we'll take a motion. I move the planning commission approve the request of Rick Peterson for approval approval of a pre preliminary plaque called the Commons at Glen Eagle located approximately 3,400 West 1700 South comprising of approximately 5.25 acres in the general commercial zone. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Moving on to number nine, public hearing for site plan request by Logan Hammer for approval of the Syracuse Arts Academy site plan. Logan, approximately 2965 West, 1700 South and Commissioner Garner, do you believe that you have to recuse yourself of this? I do have requested recuse from this. I sit on the board for search. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. So this is uh it's pretty minor but uh and also it's a school so we're pretty limited in what we can regulate. Uh however the uh let's see I just need to stay zoomed out. There we go. So what's what's being proposed is uh they've just got a couple of future phases. They wanted to get a bunch of this approved I guess now. Originally uh I just shown phase one. they've added now phase two with this parking lot area and then also phase three. Uh so um the only issue really that we had was there was some parking and things that needed to be adjusted and then uh also they had a property line that was going through the building just previous stuff. So, they've taken care of all of that. And uh uh also, as a side note, the federal uh property here for the Bureau of Reclamation that has the pipe out there, uh they also requested a copy of the site plan, and I had an email from them both yesterday and today, two separate folks within their organization saying they were fine with what's shown here as well. So, they just wanted me to pass that on. Um so, what's what's shown here though does meet all the requirements of our code. Um, I suppose the only exception, and it's really just a technicality, is the the bike parking that shown doesn't meet our standards for bike parking, but it's also school bike parking. It's just a giant bike rack. So, uh, I anticipate mostly to be used by the students, but um, setbacks and sizing and everything. Uh, the the stuff we can regulate is all uh, good to go. So, we'd recommend approval.

Fantastic. Thank you. All right. This item is as I said open for uh slated for public hearing tonight. So we will go ahead and open public hearing. If you have uh comments on this uh particular item, please step forward be heard. See anybody staying online either. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing and bring it back to commission. Yep. pretty straightforward here. But there are any concerns otherwise I'm thinking were we going to have the school rip? Do we have them here? Yes, they're here.

Sorry. Do we have any questions for the for the

Yeah, that that was just it. I didn't know if they wanted to say anything. So, do you have anything that you wanted to add to? All right. And and so at this I guess if with future phases do they have a time limit on how long the or it's only if they change or like um back in 50 years and finally do phase three. Yeah. I mean technically the so a site plan approval expires after a year. So if it was approved today it would just be a year from today. They would have to get moving on something, show some form of uh construction in order to not have to come back. That means going out playing state. Yeah, it's like go shovel some dirt.

Are you the applicant? Yes. Okay. Yeah, please. Maybe that's a good question for them. What's the time? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,

thank you. Uh Sheldon Kilpac, One West Construction. Uh the the school is actually going through bonding right now uh for this. And so the reason why we're doing it in three phases because the three classrooms that are uh going to be attached to the existing building have to be ready by August. So we're hoping to start construction next week on those three to get those completed. Uh the other structure really can be finished mid year. And so once bonding is complete, construction will start on that in the fall, which is why you're seeing the three different phases. And we didn't want it to be too confusing, but uh just in order to make their time frame, we kind of broke it up into phases just so that we can meet all of their deadlines.

Yeah, I know when it comes to schools, they have rules and time outside. All right. Take a motion.

I'll make a motion. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I move the commission approve the request by Logan Hammer for approval of the Syracuse Arts Academy site plan co located at approximately 2965 West, 1700 South. The proposed site comprises approximately 4.29 29 acres in the A1 zone. Thank you. We have a uh motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion passes. Moving on to final plot. Uh application by Taylor Anderson for the approval of the final plot for the Salt Rock phase two. All right. So this is the the middle phase of the Salt Rock project. Um let's see here. So we approved phase one a few months ago up here and phase three is on this portion there. Uh so this one's very similar to phase one, just single family homes, open spaces. Um, they've got, let's see, uh, some of the stuff's already going in, like they've got the the fencing going in already and whatnot. So, um, yeah, pretty much the same as what we've seen. All the Actually, I didn't even have any comments on this. They were good to go. So,

this is just a six-month extension on it, isn't it? Uh, no, that's a that's a future one or a different different. So we would recommend approval of this one though based on the fact that they uh meet all the requirements of the code and all the staff comments have been addressed.

Perfect. All right. This is uh just discussion and motion for for the commission. So um I'm assuming this is Taylor as well again. Um do do any of the commissioners have questions for Yeah. I guess guess elevation wise because the road is going in and it if you pass by there that's the road is much higher than what was existing. Um and then if the backyard they put in the fence the concrete first and so now are we getting the effective concrete height if the road now the buildings are we going to have is it basically we're going to be seeing into the backyard. Uh

so without getting into is there there may be other applications that we'll see along those lines. That is a good question. It's a very good question. We may we may be discussing something along those lines coming up. I don't have an application for that stuff but we have discussed it. We had a meeting with the developer to discuss specifically these properties along the the fence line. Um just looking for solutions right now but not sure exactly what those solutions are going to look like. So, but uh when we come up with those, we will definitely be bringing those to you as well. If it ends up being some change to development agreement or a city code change, you're going to have to review that at some point. But that is a good point. It is definitely higher.

Y there are no other comments. Second motion. Uh just one question. across the highway there. Uh you do have the like the sound attenuating wall. Is that a requirement that was imposed on the development there or something that they opted for?

So when the West Davis corridor went in, uh UD do a study of all the existing development that require the sound walls to go in and so that that property to the south was uh predated the West Davis corridor. So they I well I don't know if you lucky or not what however you want to determine it. They uh they got a really tall nice sound wall here because UD do installed that. Uh here we have our buffer I believe it is. Uh that requires a buffer along highways. So it's only an 8ft wall. I think in this case it's 15 and above in certain areas. So just depending we we don't have that requirement here. So that's that's why they're different. It's it's a little nicer. I think the U do one well I shouldn't say nicer I really don't know specifically it's taller but might block more sound

that was part of the the conversation and I know obviously you're new and everything but um that was part of the conversation that was that was had last year I believe okay part of that as well discussion about all of our buffers regarding West Davis corridor and talking about our commercial buffers as well so perfect won't rehash it then no no it's good for you to know it's you you need the information as well as anybody who's been on the commission in the past. So do future commissioners for information purposes. Um all right, any other comments, questions, concerns? Take a motion. Not okay.

Chair, I'll make a motion that we approve the request of Taylor Anderson for approval of a final plat called Salt Rock Phase 2 located approximately 1741 West Ross Road comprising approximately 26.883 acres in the PRD zone. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item number 11, another discussion motion for the extension of the final PL application by Derer Villain.

Oh, sorry. It's simple switch. Uh yeah, so you may remember this subdivision from about six months ago when they requested more time. uh they're they're back asking for a second extension. It's the same issue they've been dealing with uh not being able to find secondary water shares. Uh reportedly they have now found them, but they acquired them kind of shortly before the deadline was set to expire. So now they're just asking for a little bit more time to get ready to move towards construction. Uh, I think the they anticipate this is the last time that they'll be asking for an extension.

All right, cool. Um, we have the applicant. Yeah, he's front row. Well, second row. Okay. Do you do you mind coming to the microphone? You have comments on this? Nobody. Okay. Okay. It's it's not a public hearing, but yeah, he is then in second row. I don't know if he heard you or not. Okay. Do Do any of the commissioners have questions? Yeah.

All right. Then we will go ahead and take a motion if there are no comments, concerns. Uh, I move the planning commission approve the request of Leisure Villas for an extension of a final plat located at 2775 West, 2300 South, containing 10.62 acres in the R2 zone. Thank you, Commissioner Shane. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. We will take a motion to adjourn to work session. So moved. All in favor? I.

All right. We are journey into work session. City council leaison report.

Nobody's behind now. I'll hear in a minute. Uh Abraham Pard with the Syracuse City Council. Uh I don't have anything to report. Uh the last uh recommendations that the commission sent to the city council for with the recommendation of approval were all approved by the city council with really no concerns. So well mostly it's me taking information to them. Perfect. Thank you. We appreciate all your hard work. Appreciate it, Dave. Thank you. Thanks. City attorney, the floor is yours.

The burning question is, do you want to spend 15 minutes talking about ethics or do you promise not to get arrested for at least two weeks and we'll do it some other time. I'm good either way. I personally think that we're we're good with uh pushing our training back two weeks as long as everyone else is okay with that. I'll hold off. Yeah. I don't want to see any of your names in the newspaper. Thank you. In a bad way. Likewise.

Well, there is one other requirement. Thank you, Abe, for reminding me. Sometime between now and when you come back to do this ethics training, please, at least once, unless you're allergic to seafood, go out and get fish and chips. You'll find it very helpful. Okay. I'm saying that for Kayla's benefit. She's dying to find out what this training has to do with stinky fish

in suspense now. Two weeks. I'm kind I'm curious myself now. Thank you, Colin. All right. Um, as as discussed, we'll go ahead and move the training for the ethics back to the next meeting. Um, upcoming agenda items. So, we just approved a whole bunch of them, which is great. Uh but we I think trading is gonna be pushed back a month.

We'll see. Hopefully we get Well, I guess actually I didn't. That is a good point. I did not see updated information from people uh today, which would have been the deadline for the next meeting. So, as it stands, um unless we have something that comes up, I guess like a final plat or something that comes out of nowhere, I can't imagine. Uh we don't have anything for the next meeting. So we kind of heavy loaded this one and then uh nothing. So uh I guess we can maybe talk about what we want to do with that later. But just FYI, not much going on there. We do have um couple of them that are sort of stalled out. I think there's the Rocky Mountain Wellness west of the the uh city hall. We're still waiting on that one. Uh, we also have the Sim City project which is down by the Pickle Ball Kingdom building. Uh, haven't heard updates. I apologize tonight. My my throat has been having trouble. Um, but no no updates on that one. Um, we have so we we've had a couple of uh applications and uh, Commissioner Nielson, thanks for attending the ARC meeting. We had an ERC meeting this week or last week, last Monday to discuss the Premier Dance, Rocky Mountain Tumbling, and a holiday oil application all down. I think I mentioned these last time. Um, all down on this corner. So, uh, hopefully see those soon. Uh, I know Rock, uh, Holiday Oil in particular has been rearing to go. They have both a PL and a site plan for that corner. Uh, we also have revised site plan for Earthworks, the one that's up here uh, by the Syracuse Arts uh, Academy.

They're they're close, I think. Um, so hopefully we see that one soon. Um, and then we also have an application for freeway signage. Uh, we've got a couple of properties that have just been interested in in potentially developing near the freeway and they're concerned that their signs are not going to be seen from the freeway and our sign code is is limiting enough that they can't do the height they want. So, we'll be potentially looking at that site plan amendment or that text amendment. Uh, and that is it for now. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I ask I've I've had people say that we've got a uh Olive Garden and a U Chick-fil-A coming in next to Costco. Is that any rumors to that?

No, we've been working on that. There city council approved a memorandum of understanding uh with the developer a few months ago, 6 months ago now probably and part of the condition. So the city owns that land. It's the north northeast corner of 3000 West in Analopee. the city owns that land and uh we've we have an understanding with that developer that if they were to de to deliver those two desirous uses then the city would be willing to sell the land to them. So uh we do not have an application currently for uh a site plan or anything yet. Okay. Thank you.

So there's your Yes. There are there are list backups to that. So, there's there's still some work that needs to be done to make that a reality, but wheels are turning. It's not a rumor. We are working on it, and we hopefully will be eating chicken sandwiches by next summer. And and Feeding the Rumorville, when does Costco open? Uh should be open in June. End of June. and they should be having a but we don't always like to uh you know they they're talking about having some sort of open house celebration and exact dates will be forthcoming.

All right. Commissioner reports anything that commissioners want to bring. I I'll be on a in two in in two weeks if we have the meeting. I may be on a hopefully my plane is not delayed returning, but I should I should still be here. We might be canceling two weeks, but you'll let us know. Yeah, we'll let you know based off of how those applications progress, but it's looking like it's a high probability that we'll be canceling the meeting.

All right. If there are no other reports or anything to report on, take a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. All in favor? I I Any opposed? We're journed. Thank you. not answer any questions.

Yeah. over there.

Especially again Thank you.

They brought us some good questions.

They're my neighbors. I live like that. You're not going to introduce yourself. Nice to meet you. That is a It is It is cool when they're like, "Oh, yeah.