Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We ready, Andrew? [clears throat] Good evening everyone. Welcome to the planning pool city planning commission meeting for Wednesday, November 12th, 2025. The hour is 700 p.m. Item number one will be our pledge of allegiance. Please rise and join. [clears throat] I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat]

Item number two, roll call. Commissioner Hammer here. Commissioner Proctor here. Commissioner Gossip here. Commissioner Hamilton present. Commissioner Jensen here. Commissioner Anderson here. I'm Commissioner Sloan. I'm theoretically here as well. Uh Mr. Agard is with us. Mr. Johnson from the attorney's office. Councilwoman Manzion. Councilman Hansen. Special musical guest. Miss Baker from the recorder's office and Paul Hansen from the the engineer. Item number three, public hearing and a decision on a conditional use permit request by Kimley Horn to authorize the use of an accessory drive-thru facility for property located at approximately 2400 North and SR36 on approximately 1.23 acres in the GC general commercial zoning district. Mr. Agard,

thank you. Commissioners, this application for the conditional use permit affects the property highlighted in red on the aerial photograph. Uh it's about as close as I can get without having a survey marker on there, but um it's pretty good idea of where the propertyy's located. Uh the property is within the Peak at Compass Point development. You'll see the Smith's Marketplace there on the on the west side. And uh I believe this is lot nine of the of the subdivision. As mentioned, the property is zoned GC General Commercial as are all of the surrounding properties. So everything in the area is zoned for commercial. This is the site plan that is being proposed by the applicant as was mentioned by the chair. This is an application for a accessory drive-through facility which does require a conditional use permit in all of our commercial zones. Uh staff has is currently reviewing the site plan. They have submitted a site plan application that is under review as we speak. However, the conditional use permit is able to go forward as we're focusing on the use itself, not the particulars of the site plan. One of the things we look for with a conditional use permit is potential impacts that are generated by the proposed use on adjacent properties and then to assess or attach conditions to mitigate those impacts. The site just for a planning commission reference is oriented in a manner that there are no accesses onto any public streets. So accesses into the site go from internal are from internal circulation roads as well as a cross point of cross connection to the America first credit union parcel to the north. So when customers enter the site, they will enter from the west, particularly the southwest uh drive. They will then drive east

[snorts] around the west side of the bu around the east side of the building and then back towards the east where the queuing lanes are located, the menu boards and so forth. They will order their product and then they will exit again and head to the east side and then back out of the [clears throat] site. So, they'll be going around the building in order to facilitate the drive-thru uh the drive-thru aisle. Pickup for the product will be on the south side. Commissioner Proctor did send me an email and and ask some questions about the direction of the cars. We anticipate that most of the vehicular stacking will be before the the menu boards and so they will be facing west into the Smith's parking lot. However, when picking up their product on the south side of the building, they will be facing east towards SR36. [clears throat] However, we do anticipate most of the vehicular stacking will be facing to the west while they're waiting to do their orders. Uh staff is pleased that the the primary um the primary activity of the drive-through aisle is on the north, south, and west side of the building. instead of on the east side. Typically in that situation, we require additional landscaping to try and buffer vehicle stacking areas from view and so forth. However, most of the activity will not be on the east side. So, staff has recommended approval of the conditional use permit. We did not attach any additional conditions as we did not determine any additional impacts that were generated by this. Uh the conditions we did use are the basic housekeeping conditions we usually attach to our our staff reports. So if you have any questions, be happy to answer those for you.

I think I would argue about the stacking on the east side based on the current McDonald's. [laughter] Well, hopefully this will take some stress off the other one. [snorts] Okay. Appreciate any questions for staff from the commission. Okay, seeing none, this does require a public hearing. So, we'll go ahead and open that public hearing for those of you that might be interested in speaking on this issue. Please come forward to the podium podium, leave us your name and contact information, and limit your comments to two minutes. You guys are the public. You're all going to come up and talk about this.

So, we're here representing uh the McDonald's here. I'm Joanna Graham with Kimley Horn. So, Andrew did a great job representing this project. Um, nothing really to add, but if you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Excellent. Thank any questions for the applicant. Think so. It's pretty well put together. Thank you. Okay, back to the commission for further action. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Commissioner Jensen.

I move we approve the conditional use permit request by Joanna Graham representing Kimberly Horn. Kimberly Horn to authorize accessory drive-thru facility for lot 9 of the Peak at Compass Point commercial subdivision application number 202591 based on the findings and subject to the conditions lifted in this listed in the staff report dated November 6, 2025. I'll second that. We have a motion from Commissioner Jensen, second from Commissioner Hamilton. Roll call vote. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Gosset, I'm sorry, Proctor. I. Commissioner Gosset, I. Commissioner Hamilton, I. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, hi. Commissioner Sloan also votes. I roll that passes 70. Congratulations. And start moving some dirt. [laughter]

Thank you. Item number four, public hearing decision on You know what? I didn't do something I need to do. Uh, yeah, we'll close the public hearing. [laughter] Item number four, another public hearing in decision on a conditional use permit request by Matthew Koad to authorize the uses of professional office personal services and a retail and a retail store with a maximum of 3,000 square ft to occur at the property located at 220 South Main Street in the MUG mixeduse general zoning district on 633 acres. Mr. Agard.

Thank you, Chairman. This conditional use permit involves the property highlighted in red on the arrow photograph. You may be familiar with this property. There used to be an old house on it for quite a while. Uh it is immediately north of the Lawson Family Dental south of 200 South and sandwiched between 50 West and Main Street. Property is currently zoned MUG mixeduse general. And in the mixeduse general zone, almost every use requires a conditional use permit. So, that is why it is here before you tonight. Uh, it does not have an accessory drive-thru facility. However, staff is trying to anticipate potential uses in the building in the future and getting those authorized at this time. We do have a site plan application that's being reviewed for this project. It is moving through the process in a timely manner. This is the proposed site plan. The building sits in the northeast corner of the site with parking on the west and south side. He will be or the development will be sharing the access with the Lawson family dental. The applicant has provided a signed and executed easement with Mr. Lawson and so the access points will remain as are. There are no no new accesses proposed with this development. The applicant on his application asked for retail stores for the building. However, it is a multi-tenant building consisting of six tenant spaces about 6,500 square ft in total. [snorts] These buildings tend to attract professional offices and personal services type businesses. And so staff encourage the applicant to include additional uh uses in their conditional use permit request so that in the future a cosmetologist or a realtor doesn't have to come back for a conditional use permit. So that's why

you see those multiple uses there on the on the staff report. This item does require a public hearing. Some comments a comment was registered. I trust the planning commission received those. I did forward those to you as well. Uh, one of them expressed some concern about a fence. Uh, I guess the the owner had put up a a new chain link fence and was worried that the city is going to require a masonry wall adjacent to that fence. Uh, just for clarification, we do not require fencing unless the planning commission requires it to mitigate an impact. Uh, so there's no issue there in regards to putting a new fence unless it's necessary and it's up to you guys. [snorts] So that's the request for this application. Staff's recommending approval with the basic conditions listed in your staff report. Happy to answer any questions for you.

Thank you, Andrew. Um, just for a point of clarification, did everybody receive that public comment? There was actually two, but they were one was a revised version of the first one. Yep. And we saw that. Okay. So, we'll consider that read into the Did those come through your PC public comment? Yes. Yes. So, I So, it's been fixed. You're receiving them. Excellent. I was really excited. Uh, questions for staff. [clears throat] Kelly, you looked like you had something brewing.

Yeah. Uh, I drove by this property. Um, and it looks like the fence is actually um that you're referencing is actually closer to Lawson Dental and not next to the the house. So there is a fence currently between this site and loss and dentals. It's my understanding that will be removed in favor of the development. I believe the comment was referring to fence along the northern side of the property. Yes. Next to some of those adjacent residential uses, right? Okay. I have a question.

I Kelly's still rolling. Are you still going? No, I'm good. Okay. Okay, [laughter] Commissioner Jensen. So, I thought there was a a provision in the code where commercial but or is up next to a residential they do have to put a a fans or is that multifamily to single? I I don't recall, but it seems like that's came up before. There is a provision in the code where commercial zones are adjacent to residential zones. The planning commission may require a fence as part of site plan approval if necessary. Okay? But there isn't anything in the code that requires a fence in that situation. Okay. So, and this these properties are all zoned mixed use general and so there isn't any zoning boundaries between the properties.

Okay. Excellent question. Thank you. I just think that with a property that is being used as residential, even though it is in the mixed use, I kind of feel that there should be some kind of not necessarily masonary, but some kind of privacy fence.

I agree with you. As I think Andrew alluded to, we have the ability to to do that in order to mitigate something that we have a problem with. And [clears throat] uh the letter I think if I'm not mistaken talks about uh privacy, reducing noise, and preserving residential neighborhood character. So you could theoretically use those and and Mr. Johnson's can tell me I'm wrong. We can consider those as something that can be mitigated. Yeah. All you have to do is identify the identify the the issue and then identify how those conditions will mitigate that issue if you want to put that in as a condition of approval. Melody, you have

I don't That's good. I I I think if we required them to have a solid fence just that west parking lot where you drive in on the south side heading east, we have I think it would stop headlights from shining in the backs of people's houses. And I think that's uh putting a solid fence there would mitigate that. And also vehicle noise as well. Well, I don't think it needs necessarily needs to be masonary fence, but a solid some sort of solid fence, vinyl or masonry if they choose to do so. Yeah, I'm thinking the north end of the whole property cuz if there's businesses on that north side, then yeah, yeah, we don't want them walking into neighbors backyards. I like it.

Other questions, comments? I I just think if we did it be good to have at least six feet tall. Yeah. Yeah. Six obscuring. Yeah. So that you don't have to On the site plan, it says uh two foot retaining wall with safety fence. I'm not sure if it's safety fence. So, it kind of looks like maybe they're already planning on putting a fence, but I think a sight obscure make sure is here as well. If you'd like to ask talk to him about it as well, he is here.

Okay. If there are no further questions for staff from the from the whatever it is we are. Um, we'll go ahead and open up a public hearing. Whatever it is, we are often wonderant. I am not. Okay. Thought it was. Would you [clears throat] like to be the applicant? [laughter] You are the public. So, I mean to talk about a fence, I mean, if I lived in those residences, I would like to see some type of barrier privacy headlight issue.

Thank you for that. Uh, seeing nobody else that's rushing the pulpit, we'll go ahead and and close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission for further action.

I'll make a motion, Mr. Proctor. I move we approve the conditional use permit request by Matthew Koh's ad to authorize the uses of professional office personal services and retail store with a maximum 3,000 square ft to occur in subject property application number 202596 bing based on the findings and subject to the conditions and listed staff report dated November 5th 25 and we attach a 6-foot privacy fence on the north side of the property. [clears throat] So that I'm clear and so that uh Shiloh is clear. Are you wanting that the whole length of the north side of the property? Yes.

Okay. I'm sorry, but maybe I lost it. Did you describe the fence? A six foot privacy fence. We have a motion from Commissioner Proctor. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. From second from Commissioner Hamilton. Roll call vote. Commissioner Hammer. I Commissioner Proctor. Hi. Commissioner Gosset. Hi. Commissioner Hamilton. Hi. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Sloan also votes yes. Rule that passes unanimously. 70. On to number five, city council reports. Hello everyone. Still kind of councilwoman mayor elect manzion. Congratulations.

Thank you. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um I just have one thing to report on from our meeting and that was we had at our business and our work meeting we talked about the um land use designation zoning change for the area 900 South Main Street um by the Masonic Temple. Um, we talked about it for a while at our work meeting. Um, and the applicant actually asked us to table table it so that they could go back and do some more work after listening to comments at planning commission, the public comment, and then the comment at the city council meeting. So, we still held our public comment. We had a couple of comments that were similar to what you had here at planning commission and they're going to come back when they're ready to discuss it again.

It was it was an interesting discussion. I think I was mostly surprised. Traditionally, when we've sent a negative recommendation to you guys, um that message seems to get across to the applicant better than it did this time. They didn't seem to have done much with what we had to say. I didn't think so either, but they mentioned the comments that were here. So, um I mean the council we I I think I can safely say we sent the message that we're not comfortable increasing the density on the area that we were barely [snorts] comfortable with what it had been zoned with before. And so that was kind of the maximum that we would accept, you know, so if they wanted to work with in those parameters, then we can discuss it. that um which I think I thought I wrote it down but

can I make a comment on that Marie? Yeah, go for it. Just brought this up that they have 170 something acres there and they're they're trying to do their density on the 38 acres off the 170 acres which we're not a fan of that that because that made 38 acres like way way dense and they want a little opinion from watching it. Cluster density is not unusual to do, but but I didn't feel like they couched in those terms correctly. They tried to make it appear number one that you guys couldn't do math and so I was offended on your behalf, but that's neither here nor there. But [laughter] okay, I think some of us were offended too.

Yeah. And some of you were better at hiding it than others. [laughter] But uh um I don't have a problem with cluster density and and doesn't sound like you guys would either if it was reasonable in this the carrot they were offering isn't much of a carrot when you already own the carrot, right? It can't really be developed anyway because of the the ground. So, it was fascinating. I I enjoyed it very much not having to participate in it. It was a lot of fun. [laughter] Thanks. I think it was owned for 134 single family lots maximum before. So, that's what we we're more comfortable with. That's still a lot. It is still a lot. uh and and the same issues that we had when we resoned it,

right, are still present and uh the road, the rocks, the everything that people said are are really the same public comment we had was the public comment that was there that night. And uh none again, none of that stuff really was addressed. So, I was I was disappointed. I obviously I'm the housing hawk in the place and I want to build where we can build, but it's got to make sense. Yeah. And uh I think they could have done a little better job of that presentation. Yeah, I was surprised because I expected a little bit different after the comments here, but it is what it is. Guess you can give it a try. Any questions for the council woman while she's still the council woman? Couple more meetings. Yeah, a couple more meetings.

Can we start lobbying for having you come back as the mayor to planning? Well, we'll see. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Item number six, review and decision on the minutes of the planning commission meeting October 8th, 2025 and October 22nd, 2025. If there aren't any changes or additions, I move to approve both of those sets of minutes. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Proctor. Hi. Commissioner Gosset. Hi. Commissioner Hamilton. Hi. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Son also votes I. And item number seven, we are adjourned. Thank you.