Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

to planning commission for January 7th, 2026. We'll start the meeting off with a prayer from Commissioner Anderson and the pledge of allegiance after that by Commissioner Tupo. Our Father in heaven, we're grateful we can be here gathered tonight to represent Washington City. Please help us to consider the issues carefully and please be with us as we uh discuss the issues at hand. We say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Amen. Please rise.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, [sighs] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Item one tonight is approval of tonight's agenda. Commissioner Tupo. I make a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Davis seconds the motion. I have first by Commissioner Tupo and a second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I I item two. Is there any approval of the minutes from the December 17th, 2025 meeting? Commissioner Davis, I I make a motion to approve the minutes of December 17th. Commissioner Yur, I second. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I I

uh item three is declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with anything on the agenda tonight? All righty, we will just jump right in. Item 4 A is a con C-25-15, a request for a conditional use permit for an extension to the maximum allowability sign height located at 867 West Buista Boulevard. We'll turn the time over to Elden. [clears throat]

Thank you, commissioners. The applicant is requesting approval um as you stated there to u maximize the sign height at this location. City ordinance allows for a maximum of 35 ft for freestanding signs in the C2 and C3 zoning designations with the exception for properties that are within 1500 ft of a freeway exit which they can apply through a conditional use permit for an extension of height up to 50 ft. which is why we're here tonight. The property described in this application is approximately 230 ft from the freeway exit. The applicant is asking for the maximum amount of height, which is 50 ft for the pole sign as detailed in the exhibit and sits at the southeast corner of the property. There's the details for the sign. You see it's maxed out at 50 foot tall. Staff recommends that the planning commission approved C-25-15 allowing an extension to the maximum allowable sign height with with the findings and conditions outlined in staff report. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Uh, Elden, this is Commissioner Davis. Just a couple of quick questions for perspective. What is the height of the Maverick sign? Is that at currently at 50?

It is. They also obtained an approved conditional use permit to go to 50 foot tall. Okay. Thank you. And do you know if there are any plans at this point with respect to the residence in or the Spring Hill Suites to request a similar variance? I have not heard if they plan to to do that. And this Elden, this is just a sign for Panera. It's not a billboard for Yescoigner or whoever that it's a lease. It's with the building. And it's not for other buildings. Correct. Correct. Specific for Panera Bread.

Yeah, we we would not allow off- premise signage at this location. So, it it will need to maintain for Panera Bread. Okay. That's what you're calling it. That's what they're calling this off sign. Off offite premise signage.

Okay. Any other questions for El? This is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak to item 4 A, now's your chance. We'll open the public hearing. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and if you guys don't have any more questions, we'll look for a motion. I'll make a motion. Um motion to recommen recommend approval for item C-25-15 conditional use permit for an extension of the maximum allowable sign height um up to 50 ft at 876 West Buista Boulevard with the four conditions and for um findings in the staff report. Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.

First by Commissioner Tupo and a second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Tupo. I. Commissioner your I. Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Does this go to city council? Does not.

Okay. That will that one passes. Item 4B Z-25-24. a request to reszone approximately 19.3 acres located at the norththeast corner of George Washington Boulevard and Washington Fields Road from the current A20 zoning designation to a PUDC. And we'll turn this over to Elden. This site here is approximately 19.3 acres and has a general plan land use designation of CCOM which allows for AP, C1, C2, and PUDC zoning designations. Here's the surrounding zoning here. Um to the north is A20. To the east is RA1 and PUDR and A20 to the south and PUDC to the west. The zone change request is for the purpose of developing the site into a commercial development. [clears throat] The applicant will be required and fully understands that they will need to bring the specific site design plan back to city for approval prior to any work beginning on the project. The proposal is seeking to identify ingress and egress on the site which you can see there. They've proposing five locations there. Access number one's the top left corner which is of full access movement meets the distance requirements um for that in accordance with our access management plan. And just below

that is access number two which is proposed as a right in right out. And then looking onto um George Washington Boulevard there, access number three would be a full movement access. And then coming up Camino Rial, access number four. It's also a full motion. And then in the top right corner is um access number five, which is also a full motion there. Along with this approval there uh have provided a use list which uh we can go into here and and discuss that at this time. So this top left screen is um currently as city code reads and then the next uh column over zones which each use is approved in within the city and then the far right is what they're proposing um for those uses to be approved. Uh the first one is administrative, executive, professional, medical and research offices. Second line item is banking and other financial institutions. And again, they're asking for that use to be a permitted use on this site. You can see it's allowed in the AP zones within the city. Feel free to stop me at any time if you have questions or concerns with any of these. Third item is automobile car wash not to exceed four bays. also a permitted use on this land. Next one is automobile service stations

excluding major repair work such as engine or transmission rebuilding body and collision repair frame and heavyduty truck servicing. That's allowed in in city zones of a C1 designation with conditional use permit. and they're asking for that to be a permitted use. The next line item is child daycare or preschool center which meets all state and local regulations, coffee shops, commercial recreation and entertainment facilities not to include sexually oriented businesses. Next line item, personal instruction services including gym, dance, Pilates, yoga and professional schools, private business and technical schools, reception center andor wedding chapel. Restaurants including full service and quick service dining. Restaurants including a drive-thru facility as an accessory use. Restaurants including a drive-through facility as the primary use accompanied by a patio bar establishment which you can see there uh is a permitted use with condition of an alcohol overlay zone approval. So, how would how would that one work as far as this isn't a this doesn't fall in or would we be approving an overlay zone with this? Is that what this is saying? Because this isn't in the overlay zone.

Correct. They would need to reapply for that overlay zone. Okay. So, I mean, with this approval, it doesn't automatically say that they're going to have the overlay zone of the alcohol use. They'd still have to come back in and apply for it. or is it saying that this is approving it? They will need to apply for the overlay. Okay. Zone. All right. Thank you.

Retail operation of cleaning, laundry, cosmetic and repair services, retail sales and or rental of goods, merchandise and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building. Animal hospital and veterinarian clinic including overnight care of large animals in parenthesis is no boarding. Hospital, hotel or motel, mobile food vendor, motor vehicle, trailer, camper and recreational vehicle sales agency. Retail and or wholesale sale and or rental of goods. merchandise and equipment, which may include storage and display outside an enclosed building. Examples include art shops, bank, beauty shop, bookstore, clothing store, drugstore, florist, laundry, theater, and variety store, state approved and operated liquor store, and lastly is storage units. Staff does have concerns as as we noted in the staff report there with the industrial zones. Staff feels um that those should be located more closely to industrial areas and and did have concern with that use. Staff recommends the planning commission review the proposed use list and make a recommendation to city council based on the findings and conditions in staff report. That concludes my report and I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions you may have.

This is Commissioner Yur. I just have a question about [clears throat] motor vehicle trailer camper sales agency. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that one in this spot. Some of these are huge and some are small. Are there different classifications of those types of businesses? And is this just like cart blanch for any like a big, you know, RV store could come in there and just fill the whole, you know, take 4 acres or something? Is is that how this would work?

Yeah, we we don't uh distinguish between classes of motor home. Um, if this is approved, they could bring in um units that attach to a back of a truck or a larger RV type unit. It It would include all of those uses as as written today.

Mhm. [clears throat] Does staff have any concerns about putting that in the center of sort of like more residential [clears throat] rather than like in more common places or those on the outskirts? Yes, staff did discuss this use. Um there's concern there that this this type of use may be better fit relative to, you know, more of a um a um visibility discussion there. The applicant chose to leave it on this use list.

Thanks. That would still have to come in for a conditional use permit though, correct?

City code requires conditional use permit. They're they're asking that that it be a permitted use. So, if if it's approved as written today, they they would not need to come back for conditional use. However, it would come back for site design approval with with a specific user. So I I was kind of following your question uh for Commissioner [snorts] Yur. Um so this is a 19 this is 19.3 acres and from the list of permitted uses can one of those things come and take over all 19 acres just one use. Good.

Yes. There is there is one layer that would be in the middle of that which is this is a PUDC and so the things in PUDS that have to come back to the council are site plans layout and some of those things which I believe that layer would probably give an opportunity to address the concerns that underly the questions that are being asked and so even though this list may approve those uses as uses that they might consider and be able to ask for in a site plan if the site plan were to have problems with the council, even though it's an approved list, an approved use on the list, uh, they may still not be able to get approval if the site plan doesn't get passed.

Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

This is Commissioner Anderson. I So, I [sighs] this this is completely counter to how we we do these things. I mean, it's like it's not even in the realm of how this is supposed to be done. I mean, if what they're asking for is for us to to create a new straight zone basically that gives anything and all they have to do is submit a little bit of design plans. I mean, that's just silly. If they want if they want a straight zone, then then you've already got AP, C1, and C2 straight zone and leave it. You know, pick one of those and there's you know, there's your straight zoning. I mean, in in theory, all these things they're asking for here, they could theoretically ask for them anyways with a PUD, but the whole point of the PUD is to bring in the plan for the whole area and say, "This is this is what we're going to do. This is what it's going to" And that's the whole reason for doing PUB. We we have more leeway to to give them flexibility, but in return, they give us a whole lot more information to do this to say, "Okay, we've now got our own special little commercial zone in the city to do whatever people want." I mean, that's

we shouldn't even be talking about this. So, it's my two cents. I I I don't think you're wrong, but it's also the Yeah, I see what you're saying. If they ask for if they have something like that, I mean, coming in and asking for the design afterwards would be I I I see what you're saying and but I understand like we we have had some people limited instances ask you know to get the use approved so they could make sure they get their loan and so forth done but it was for the entire project cuz like hey this is what we want right here. We're going to have this use and this use and this use. It was super specific for the whole thing. We approved it and brought the design in. We had a second meeting about design. That's not what this is. This is just like you said. So, this is just cart blanch to create a brand new commercial zone that people can pick and choose, which if we're going to do this, this is a whole this is a discussion for city council to create another commercial zone, call it C3. I don't know. I mean, this is this is not how PUDs are supposed to be oper and it's not how we've ever done it. this commissioner year. Yeah, it makes sense to me to look at the reszone site plan and where they're looking for um entry and exit access points and stuff like that.

That's fine. Yeah, that that makes sense. But that next page is a lot

Davis and and just to just to you know provide my my perspective on it. I'm struggling with the same thing because it it I can understand the zoning change and and all of that, but we're looking at a kitchen sink here that and I don't know [clears throat] if it's for marketing purposes or what have you, but you're you're looking at saying, "Okay, guys, go figure it out at a later date and we're somewhat obligated to go along without really understanding what this may look like going forward and and what the, you know, what the plan truly is." That's where I'm struggling a bit here. And if they want to do that, that's why we have straight zones. You know, pick one of the straight zones that already exist. But you can't create a new zone. That that's not what PUD is supposed to be for.

Commissioner Tupo, I I I see where what you're [clears throat] saying. I think we've had this discussion a number of times. Um we're missing our appraiser guy or our realtor guy. Um, but I think it's it's hard to to [clears throat] determine what's going to be in this zoning until offered. Like like you have to have people interested in the location and what would it would potentially look like and they might their own design. Um, so I see why it's coming in this way, but I also see that we want to know what it's going to look like and what would and what's the point?

Yeah. rejected almost everyone that has asked for this. We've made them come back and present the present the whole plan. You can't do it peacemail. If they want it peacemail, they go straight zoning. And that's that's what they're asking for is is just an expanded list of straight zone. And I know exactly why they want to. I get that cuz they don't know exactly who the clients are going to be. The whole point of doing a PUD is that you're putting together like a project like you've got this vision for you and what kind of businesses you're going to attract and what it's going to look like and if you don't have that you're not sure what people who is going to come then you I mean that's that's just how it works. This type of an approach is something that's becoming more common from the city's experience with land owners, land developers, realtors, representatives of land owners. Um, and it [clears throat] and I I would say it probably makes sense that those folks that are involved in the the sale and acquisition of lands for purposes, the more the more expectancy they can have, the the more they are able to put together deals or or recognize that the deals aren't aren't right. And so it makes sense, but it it is as as you have said, it is um the the cart is in front of the horse for how for the uses, especially as compared to the traditional zoning process that we've had. Now, PUDs and PCDs are more modern tool that are meant to kind of allow expectancy but also allow review. This this is another I'd say another hybrid factor that's kind of trying to to talk about the uses before you've seen a site plan and and so we understand why they're asking for it. We also understand that it's it's not uh probably that comfortable as far as

process goes because we don't usually see these things first. This is Commissioner Mitchell. Um, so based on that, uh, is Corey's, you know, Cory's description kind of correct, I guess, in a way with them and their approach. And you're saying this is kind of a new or you're seeing it more and more. Is that something that we would expect? I guess I'm trying to figure out why. I mean, I see from what Corey has said the advantages, but then I do see the disadvantages too to a planning commission and us trying to pre, you know, plan for the city. So what we see happening a lot is scenarios where buyer says yes I'll buy your commercial acres but we'll set the closing date you know 7 days after you get final and full approval of all vestings for the use we're buying it for which is kind of what this is doing right trying to get the uses so they're known and guaranteed before they jump all the way into the pool and So, this reflects real estate industry realities, which is buyers are wanting some promises on vesting before they're willing to, you know, invest in a piece of land. And so, um, I think there's value to the city to see lists like this early and often, um, that the planners, the planning commission and the city council, those that are tasked with deciding, is this the right fit for our community? is this the right fit for our code and our and our law, our city law, you probably need more than just the list to be able to reach us to settle

your minds on whether that is the right fit. And so nothing else. Um you can say, look, we we see the list, you know, these are the issues on the list that we think it must come out. The rest are good, but we we do want to make it known that the site plan is also going to be really important as to whether this this zone designation gets fully approved and fully vested because that's the part of the planning that you usually either see it in conjunction with the list or or you know you've seen it once you've got the list as well.

So, you're saying it' be like a two-step process or is that how it's going to be? because I'm so if we wanted to be practical I would say let's let's get your feedback on the list on the record and if you want to say look now that we've talked about the list we just want to make it clear that we still think the site plan is relevant to the overall approval of this is one that's got to go to city council anyway and so mostly your feedback about the list and those use items I think is where we can give us we can add a lot of value while also recognizing that the process isn't the one that you've traditionally had. So, this is Commissioner Anderson. I I don't just for the record, I don't have any problem with any particular items on the list. That's not my issue. It's it's the process. This is not how the this process is set up. You know, it's trying to circumvent the way we do it. I mean, the city the the residents of the city, they have an expectation of what each of the straight zones are allowed to do. you know, they they know what a what a a an AP zone can have, what a C1 can have, what a C2 can have. And that way, you know, if it's if it's general plan to be one of those and somebody asks for that, it's already there. Like, that's what can be there. The whole point of a PUD is it's kind of a give and take with the residents where if they ask for PD, they can have a lot more flexibility. They can bring a lot more things in. They can change up, you know, setbacks and this and that. It gives the developer a lot more flexibility, but the tradeoff is that they provide the site, the design, the use, all this stuff. So then the public can see what's going to be there. You know, that's the whole point of the PD. So I have no problem with anything on the list. I have a problem with the process. This is circumventing on the whole point of the PUD. So and if if we think that that a new list, a new zone needs to be made, then that's something city council needs to be considered. we

shouldn't [clears throat] gut the entire peed process just because it's more expedient for someone to, you know, sell a property. I and I get that. I I I totally understand why they want to know what's there. But again, if you want certainty of what's allowed, pick a pick an AP or pick a C1 or pick a C2. It's already allowed to do that, you know. [clears throat] Is it worth Yeah. moving forward and get I mean, have them I'm curious to find out why why they're coming at us this direction versus the normal procedure. They [clears throat] may have reasons. I mean,

they want it. Yeah. They they they want us they don't know who their buyers are going to be and they want to see I get that. Like I said, I don't have any problem. Yeah. It's not how it's done. How it's supposed to be done.

Yeah. when our early meetings with developers that that are considering going to PUB um you know right out the gate staff recommends the full full submittal site plan landscaping building elevations useless just as Commissioner Anderson noted there. Um, [clears throat] however, we do have a clause in the way that things can be done and this is an option for them to to break this out um and and submit this package. I I get the frustration in there when it is broken out and and seems a little clunky in that regard, but it is an option for them to to take and um pursue this avenue. All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to come and speak to this, please come to the mic and state your name for the record. And

yes, David, I'm sorry. Please walk up to the mic so we can get it on record. Yeah, I'm David Hillyard. I live on Roadrunner Drive and uh I had a question too about the entrances to the facility, whatever it turns out to be. Is there going to be an interest on Camino Royale? Yes, it showed too on Camino Royale.

That creates a big traffic problem. There's already so much traffic on Camino Rial. We really don't need anymore. There's plenty of traffic as there is now. And it's really not policed well at the corner there of George Washington Boulevard and Camino Rail. Hopefully, they're going to put in a stoplight because those people coming off Highway 7 are just barreling down the road and it becomes a real a real problem. So, one of the things that I'm really concerned about is that I'm concerned about some of the things on the list that they want to put in here, too. But that will come later after we see more.

Okay. [clears throat] Okay. Thank you,

Sherry Tate. Um, just a couple of things. Obviously, this is adjacent to our property. Um, the access in and outs is a concern. Um, it's something I feel like could probably be worked out fine, but looking where the access off of Washington Fields Road, we have an access right close to that. And knowing how things have worked in the past, it's I haven't seen two accesses side by side. So if that is going to be a shared access or what you know we need to get into our property also and the the piece that is right adjacent to to that um piece I mean I bet we're maybe 50 ft apart. So I just that's something that I'm concerned.

Sure. Are you referencing that farthest north access on the exhibit there? Uhhuh. Right by the right by the property line. And then if you look in the over overlay picture of the property, you can see where ours is kind of worn down already. You can see where we go in. We do use that for parking. Yeah. Right. Right. That kind of dull park right there. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I clarified which access you'reing.

So that [clears throat] you know that's a concern and and we've had several conversations with the developers and feel like we have a good relationship there. So, you know, I it's just something that I want to make sure that um is understood is we don't [clears throat] want to be landlocked that we can't get in and out of there. We use that piece. And then the other thing I've really been thinking a lot about that I think needs to be taken into consideration with a development like this and and we have had conversations, but when um Washington Field started developing any commercial um we were very very I say we cuz I was on kind of a committee or group that intentional on what what is Washington Fields going to look like? What is the plan? You know, there's been a there's they came in gang busters. We're going to know exactly. And so the first two commercial places that came in, we were we had, you know, the the people that designed it and when Whammers came in, we were like, "No, it is looking like this." They presented many plans and same with um right below us, I can't think of the name, uh Hoops project. And so, um, not that I wholeheartedly agree with like the city gets to say you have to do this, but we have to recognize that that is a freeway exit. That is probably going to be one of the bigger commercial, you know, developments. And what do we want that to look like when people approach, which will be what I consider the downtown Washington fields. So, um, you know, we haven't unfortunately really pinpointed what is Washington fields going to look like, but you know, I'm a true heart of Washington City. And, you know, we look

at Telegraph and it's a lot of stuff. And so, Washington filled the four corners, which will be commercial eventually. Like, I just feel like we need to be very intentional on what that looks like. And I know we've discussed with this group like design um standards or colors or you know something that complements the Washington fields. I know the trail system is going to come through in places you know so that there's an an idea so we don't start out of the gate. We started really well with those other two commercials getting what I would say hodgepodgey like you know sorry about the quick quack on record but you know that would probably kill my heart to see that on that property in the orange and green but that's just me. So, I'm just saying like if we're if we were so really strict with the designs of these other two commercials, and I think I know it's changed since then, but we I think we need to be really intentional and purposeful on what we want it to look like and and all the uses that are there. I mean, I think, you know, I agree, Commissioner. I can't see a trailer plate, you know, but let's let's really consider like what what it what is it going to look like and what is our purpose and make sure Staley Farm has an access in and out that, you know, we can still do what we do on our [clears throat] property, too. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Brit Nichols. I live on U Roadrunner as well. The I would it is my opinion that the list as proposed is going to be problematic. Uh one of those reasons is it comes across as let's throw whatever comes across the against the wall and let's see what sticks. Um, I believe you're going to find many residents of the area concerned about what's going to happen versus a proposal of this is what we want to do. It seems like they're shopping for whatever they can put into this into this land. And I understand their desire to do so because it gives them greater latitude and greater flexibility. However, I believe in the long run, uh, the residents of the area, myself included, and others who I've talked to, would find that to be very uncomfortable because we don't know what's going to happen. All of a sudden, something's there and it's not exactly what we anticipated. Um, so I would suggest that following the triedand-true method this way is better in that this is what we propose what we're going to do. This is what we're going to put there and this is what we're going to find to go in there versus let's find somebody and we're just going to shove them in there because we have the land. That's the way it comes across. And so that I would suggest that's something that we need to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey, my name is Matt Nielsen with Evergreen Development. We're the owners of this land.

I'll let you come up and talk when I Yeah. The public comments. Sorry. I'm We'll let you come. I just want to let everyone else have a chance to speak first. Hi, Charlotte Smith and I live on Rockwood Court and I also have great concerns about the access points on Camino Royale. Um, we had a a child hit by a car from our neighborhood last year at the end of school and we have children who cross Washington George Washington Boulevard since they opened seven. It is a nightmare during the intermediate school, during the elementary school because they're all heading down um to Majestic. And so we already have an issue and if we have delivery trucks and we have all of that extra load of traffic for whatever is going to be built there. I just think we definitely need to make sure that the children are protected and the access points on Commamino Royale is not going to protect any child at all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I'm Katherine Staley. Um, we lease our property to Sherry to run the family farm. my my question and and I'm not up on all these all these numbers that you're using. She is, but I'm not. Um, it's my understanding that you I I was surprised that there was any alcohol at all on there, but I I wondered because I don't know how far away from a school do you have to be to to sell alcohol

or to have I have no clue. That's Do you know that? I'm I'm was just concerned that there was any alcohol on there and it said, you know, that you'd have to come in. But I I always thought if you were close to a school, you couldn't sell alcohol. And then in our family business is geared to children. So

yeah, you are correct that there is in the law laws that say if you are located within a certain distance from a school, a park that you cannot get a license to sell alcohol. And so both the city code and the state law say that. And to sell alcohol at this location, they're going to need both a city license and a state license for alcohol sales. Um, and so you are right, that decision is made when and if they submit for a alcohol license from the city and from the state. And so we haven't we haven't measured and checked those distances as of this moment. But you are right that that restriction does exist.

Well, I I'm sitting back there thinking, will that keep a grocery store from coming in if they can't sell the beer or something? So, so one of the things that we often overlook when we're talking about bar licenses is that grocery stores andarmacies and gas stations sell alcohol all over our city, just not the same type of alcohol in the eyes of the state of Utah's um alcohol bureau, right? And so those are different types of licenses. So they would be able to get a grocery store in there.

Grocery store or a convenience store get a different type of alcohol sales license and have a different standard than something that sells like alcohol a bar that would sell consumption of alcohol on site. Okay.

Yeah. And so there's a lot of rules there. The states made all the rules for us. Uh, the state government operates a monopoly within the state of Utah for alcohol distribution and sales and licensing. Washington City's code represents the same standards that the state has issued, but we have tightened those standards with some of our own standards such as the number of bars allowed per population number that we are we're not as generous for bar licenses as the state sets as their minimum rule. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay, I will close the public hearing portion of this and if the developer would like to come and speak now. Hey, sorry to uh jump the gun.

Not a problem.

Um, like I said, my name is Matt Nielsen with Evergreen Development. We bought this land about a year ago or so. I run our Utah office, born and raised in Utah. I live up in Kisville up north. We we're really excited for this project. Um, it's going to be a grocery anchored development. That's what we bought it for. That's our plans for the property. Um, and that's our intent. We're currently working with a ger to put him on this property. And so when going through this process and discussing with staff on kind of what the best way forward was, I mean, we originally considered the idea of just a straight zone, um, one that would allow us to meet the needs of our development. And it was from staff's recommendation that we go this PUD route. And the reason why we did this route is so that we could get some asurances that we could do the uses that we needed at this property while also giving planning commission council and staff more um uh teeth I guess you could say or approval rights over how that looks with the site plan and approvals and elevations and all that kind of stuff. And so this was the the way to meet in the middle to be able to meet our demands and also to meet make sure the city and residents had their input on exactly how site plans looked, elevations and everything else. Um I agree there's a lot on this list that doesn't need to be on this list that we have no intent of doing. You know RV sales is a great example of that. Um storage units is a great example of that. We're concerned about the typical uses that would come with any grocery development that you would see with restaurants and coffee shops and our grocery store obviously. Um, and so that's what we're mostly concerned about. The list is extensive, but ours deals our interest is mostly in the the uses that deal with our direct development. And so we we could have submitted a direct zoning requirement, you know, a C2 or C1. Not exactly sure what's the best one, but when discussing with staff, we feel like this was the

best way forward to allow for the permitted use for what we need to do. And for us, a big part of getting that permitted use is to that point of marketing, but not necessarily just to fish, but from a timing standpoint of how long it takes for our ger and each individual use to come back in and go through that process. And so a PUD is a great tool and it also is a very very slow tool for getting our uses like our grocery store in and approved. And so this was a way to try to speed that up to a certain degree that we could while also meeting our deadlines and getting the city what they actually wanted for these uses. And so our intent is to do a great neighborhood um grocery anchor development that makes everybody happy. We don't want to come in and do um uh you know RV sales, motor sales. That's not what we're trying to accomplish here. We're trying to accomplish uh grocery. So happy to ask ask or answer any questions you have and uh yeah, let me know. It It's [clears throat] hard because you got three partials here and are you putting three different things on here? You putting 10 different things on here. you're going to sell each partial separately.

I mean, that's, you know, that's why we're kind of wanting to know what's going on here.

Yeah, we we will come back. Those are the three parcels that we bought. So, we haven't come back in yet to replplat the property, but we will come back in to replplat the property. We'll sell the grocery store there portion of the property. So, that'll be a separate plat. And then there will be individual uh plats for several of our users out there. So, that plat will change from what you see today. [snorts] Any other questions? I I don't really have any questions. I mean, I I understand [clears throat] what you're doing. It's just and I don't know if what we had said makes sense, but like you explained like you explained kind of the the the point of the PUB, but what you're doing is not what you just explained. Like the point of the PUD is not what you're doing here. What this is is you're asking for a new zone that gets cart blanched to a whole bunch of other things. I mean, if if if you're if you're putting in a grocery store, I mean, if you already know which, you know, which which area that's going on, I mean, zone, you know, zone that one for for a grocery store and the other ones, leave them open until you have a better idea what you want to do and then do a PUD for whatever you, you know, whatever your vision is for there. I mean, you can do that. You just, this is just not the way it's done, that's all.

Yeah. And again, the way we did it this way is based on recommendation of of staff, which is why we we did it this way. Um, we did it this way with the intent that if we can at least get a use permitted that it still comes back in each individual use for that PUB is our understanding for site design, elevations, and all that stuff. And so having to come back in and individually reszone for just a grocery store or just a restaurant or just a coffee shop can delay our timeline by years and years and years. And so that that's a big concern for us because obviously we have an obligation to come and try to pull off a great development here that makes sense for us and to make sense for the city and to make sense for our tenants. And those timelines, dragging them out for as long as it would take to get each individual use permitted is a pretty major concern for us. And for our grocery

Have you ever seen a PUD package like submitted like like the way they are? We don't typically use PUDS in a lot of our stuff.

I don't think you I don't think you understand what we're saying. Like when people come in with a PD, they come in with full full blueprints, full landscape plans, lighting plans. These are usually they don't know exactly who their tenants are, but they're like, "Hey, this is where the drive-in type estimates going to be, and this is where the grocery store is going to be, and this is where, you know, whatever the the office space, or, you know, and this is how the parking's going to be, and it's like a full packet." Like, [clears throat] that's how it is. And if you don't want to do that, then you just pick a zone and and zone it. It sounds like you're more familiar with stray zoning, which I mean that's that works just fine probably for for what you're what you're saying you want to do anyways. So again, I'm not against, you know, what you're doing or any of this. It's just you're you're just approaching it wrong. And so just for the sake of process, I mean, I'm going to be I'm going to say no.

This is Commissioner Mitchell Elden. I'm just curious why the city staff recommended this method.

Great, great question. Uh, we're a very hands-on city. Um, one of the attendees there spoke on that. They want to be involved and know what's coming in. uh in our early discussions developers um know like if Matt said he wanted to go straight zone and the staff recommended we don't because the city wants to be involved in the uses if we're to give a straight C2 zone which they could ask for you know it's general plan CCOM which he he has the right to submit to a C1 or a C2 zone change um We we want to be involved with with the uses. There may be some uses in the straight zone recreational vehicle sales that we feel don't apply to this area. And this is a way for us to to navigate and and pick out or or put in use that that we want there. More flexibility. Um

is Elen, this is a list of everything. Well, that that that's why we're here. If I let's we need to have that discussion and go line by line and recommend to scratch or or add in uses is is what we're here for tonight. Um you know, if you don't like one of those proposed uses, make it known. Let's recommend to pull that use out. I didn't like the whole process. I think the process this is not how this is just we're like dad said we're putting the car way. So my thought is this like Ann and he makes the comment like we're I curious to see what this is the the feeling I have from a lot of people is that they don't want to come to Washington city because of the difficulties of trying to develop. I don't know if that's a true fact. So in my mind it's like okay is there a way to work as a city to bring some of the commercial that we want. Um, if that changes the way, I get it that it's not the common way, but if there is a way to do it, [clears throat] and Corey, I I had the same thought as you, like if there is a partial that this grocery store is going to go into, why not section that out and then just make it that zone and then take the time to finish it out like you typically would with the other partial. And is that kind of what you're

if they want. I mean, here's an example. Okay. Came through. Okay. First did they submitted it just like that.

Exact same discussion. And we said no. Cuz they all they had is they had a big thing and they had a big list. Hey, we want any of these possible uses here. And we and the only one they would tell us is that we might have a gas station, but we definitely want a car wash. And that was it. But we're not we don't know where. We don't know how. And that was it. We're like, well, that's not a PUB. And we said either do what's allowed here or do a PED and bring it to us so the public can look at it. We can see what it is. And so they decided to stay with the PED. They came back with full plans with full this and that. We went back and forth. There were issues with the design and so forth. They fixed it. They made it look better. And eventually it was a good project. They came doing this exact same thing and we shot them down for the exact same reason. And had we done this Whammers would not look like it looks like right now. Not at all. it would have been just a gigantic hodgepodge. And we've we've had this discussion with six or seven projects that are trying to do the same exact thing. And and the thing is you ask is there a process to work? But yes, the process is you've got straight zoning which the city the the residents have bested understanding what those zones have or you have a flexible zone. Flexible zone has certain requirements and those requirements are to provide the [clears throat] the design and use and to show us what they're going to do. That is the thing. and and and no, we are Washington City is not any more difficult than anywhere else. Trust me, not by a mile.

I was actually going to ask that question. I know you're you're a contractor. You deal with different cities in the county and by a long way Washington city is a lot easier to work with than So, we're not making it difficult for to come in and commercial. They're just not aware of how this process works. That's all.

And it's not his fault. I'm just saying this isn't how it's done. If if if he wants a PUD, that's what it takes. You know, put together your your vision of what you want the thing to look like, how you want the parking to be, how you want the buildings to be, and and what general things you want and we talk about it and public sees it and that's how it works. Or if you don't, then you just pick a spray zone and go for it. So from my understanding on a a project like this where you know there's a ger there's multiple pads there's multiple users at this point when we don't know exactly how those users look or what they look like right if it's going to be a coffee shop or a a sitdown restaurant or what it's going to be I think that's what we were trying to streamline where you know we get at least know the uses that we're going to get approved but then not knowing exactly what those uses are going to look like so we can get zoning in place but not knowing exactly which users are going to in there. So, so just from my understanding for this PUB process, our understanding is we get the use permit or we get the use permitted and then we come back in and then you guys have the ability to to look through the site design and elevations and make it look the way the city wants. But at least we know the use can be there. But the the burden that you guys or you have the ability to say, you know, it can't look like this. It needs to look like this, this, or this. So in the process, you're saying if we don't know the users yet, are you saying that it can't be zoned PUB because you don't have every user lined out already?

PUD has to be a kind of a presentation like you instead of saying, oh, this is kind of what we want to do. It's an actual presentation now. It's better if you have the design and use together because that way you can actually kind of see what you're you're looking at. In some cases, we have approved, you know, use before, but it's still been quite specific like, hey, you know, in this rough area, we want a grocery store here, and then we want, you know, some drive-in, you know, things here, and we want some some retail here and and whatever. Like, I mean, you can still put that together. I mean, people do it all day long, and then the the design of the buildings and all that would come after the, you know, who the tenants are. So, fine. I mean, you still and you still have

even when you do design, you can't do the peace mill each thing. I mean, everybody Yeah, everybody has their own signage and their logos and so forth, but the whole place has to have kind of a cohesive look as well. So, that's why I said sometimes it's easier to kind of have a vision of the whole thing. I mean there been lots of projects that have come here to do PUB and they've huge presentation and this is our idea and these are the type of businesses and this is kind of look like and so forth and I mean the one on this exact piece of property like they they put together a really really good um PUD planet had exactly where they wanted stuff what they wanted to look like and everything. The reason that one got shut down was not because of the PUD process of the uses

of the uses uses. Yeah. But but I will say this in their defense, they had the uses limited down to like like two or three maybe four uses, right? I mean, at least they knew what they wanted. Now, council and planning commission didn't agree with the uses, but at least it was like, "Hey, this is kind of what we're going to do." In this [clears throat] case, you're saying, "Well, we know what we're going to do, but this whole list, so maybe we can find something." That's that's not what

uh Commissioner Anderson, I'm just curious to ask this question. So, I get it that they've got the grocery store that's locked and ready to go, but that's the only use that they've got confirmed. So, if that was if this was your piece of property and you had that same scenario, what direction would you approach to try to get the grocery store in and then to have the rest come around it?

Okay. So, if I had completely no clue who was ever going to buy the property like whatsoever, I didn't have any vision. I would straight zone it for something that was as closely in line with what I think I could sell it for and go with that. And if I did have a vision like, hey, I really want this to look like this village of these little shops and this grocery store and this and that, then I'd put it together. And and you can still pick I mean I'm sure you probably know at least, you know, two or three or maybe four uses of, hey, this is really what we're going to shoot for. I mean, I guarantee you your list of potential customers is not that whole list, right? Right. I mean, you you got like kind of at least a vision, a narrowed idea of, hey, this is kind of what I want to look like. I mean, that that's just it's not as hard as it sounds.

Every practice we get submits it like that. Make the comment, you know, if if we do go straight zoning here, there's no give or take on the uses. It's all or none. No. And I and I know that. I'm just I'm just saying you could do a PUD and it just it just takes a little bit of homework of saying let's narrow this down to a few things and get [clears throat] kind of a general layout and hey these are kind of where our grocery store wants to be and these are kind of the kind of the stores we're looking to sell it. It doesn't have to be super super specific, but it's got to be a lot more specific than a gigantic list.

I I understand kind [snorts] of where the developers coming from. you know, they want to get it done, get it moving, and it makes sense. But, I mean, we give this and then you're just coming back. Yeah. You'll be able to say, "We go through this and, you know, we don't we don't want the the storage units. We don't want the the RV cells or the automotive cells, you know, we don't we don't want this there in these uses." Okay. But now, you still have to come back and show us the layouts of everything. So, I mean, this is kind of like the first step, you know, we'll we'll give this PUD a go with these certain as of right now, but if it comes back and we don't, you know, and you ask for something in this PUD that we already agreed to, but we don't know for sure if we, you know, I understand [clears throat] you're putting the cart before the horse, but you don't want to buy, you don't want to buy the wrong wrong horse for the wrong cart as well. You know what I'm saying? So, I understand where you're coming from on this and it makes it makes sense to me and I understand what what what Commissioner Anderson is saying as well because we don't know I feel like it's a this is going to be in order to make everybody feel comfortable about it. This is going to be a a two-step process for for a a CU uh conditional a PUD. Sorry.

Yeah. And and maybe to just add to what you're saying, a real oversimplification would be remove from this list anything that's probably a no regardless of site plan, right? Anything on there that that's just absolutely not in this city or on this property, [clears throat] let's get it off. Everything else would would be recommended or not recommended by you to the council. The council then would consider it, but it would be subject to the site plan. So the a good example, I think it was you, Commissioner Mitchell, that said, you know, if if the whole site was RV sales, I might look at it differently than if, you know, there was a corner of RV sales mixing with other uses, for example, right? And so the list as approved by the council would essentially have that asterisk with it. And so yeah, that's the process they're asking us to entertain. Um, I sustain our planning department to try and be flexible and have these conversations. Do think talk about uses the better we are and the better our process is. But it is it is

that at that point we're then defining what we feel like the field should look like, what should be there, and what shouldn't. Yeah. [clears throat] So I feel like that if we do approve this, we still want to see everything before anything else happens. I feel like tonight's just would just be asking for what uses can go in this PUD. So, we're making a PUD based on uses and then we'd have and then we'd have to come back again, [clears throat] which is not going to speed his process up. But he's going to come back. I think you're I'm worried about is that like even if we approved a it's still just a generalization of

Yeah, we still have to come in and everything over again. You have to put all this this fully understand that. I think to your point, we were trying to figure out a way where we can confidently go to our grocery tenant and other tenants and say, "Hey, your use is approved here. Now you have to come back in and resubmit on this PUB for your elevations, for your site plan, and everything else." But at least we can go confidently say to our ger that you should come here versus going to another area, city, whatever it is. And you're going to have to show us, you know, what you want on here, not just, all right, here's our here's our ger and now we'll figure this out later. You got to show all I mean you got to show we're going to have we're going to have you don't necessarily show us what the building is if I'm correct. I mean

it's been it's been a [clears throat] minute but staff please help me if I'm wrong but we'll want to know. All right this is this is going to be a building. It might be a drive-through building. This might be a car wash. This might be a bank. This might be you know an office building which is what we want is what we're wanting to see. And right now we're like we don't even know where it's going to go. We don't know what it's going to look like. So I feel like this is the step to just approve what uses can be made. Is that is that where I feel like what we're asking for here? I mean is that I mean

for the sake of experiencing like this is [clears throat] you ask what I would do. Okay. I mean in general very generally I mean I can look at this right now. I mean I'd probably say this stuff right here right sale of of uh goods you know art shop, bank, beauty shop, bookstore, clothing storevious. obviously, you know, type of thing, you know, retail sales. Can we zoom in on that a little bit?

Restaurants, drive-in, you know, areas, you know, full service restaurants and and and drive-in restaurants. Um, you know, gym, Pilates, yoga, whatever, or maybe a coffee shop or um, you know, bank, you know, administrative office building. I mean, those are like the things that we would normally see in a PUB. Hey, this is kind of the stuff we want here, right? I mean, so I would start by crossing everything else out. Should we go ahead and do that? At least narrow that down. Well, do we take the list and cross off what we don't want there?

Well, I think that I think that we give a recommendation. We we do that. We we go through and do this and say this is what we want on here and this is what we don't. But I still feel like all we are giving we're not we're not approving a PUD. We're approving a use for a PUD which is a step towards it. Not necessarily the whole thing. Yeah. And that's where I feel like we're getting nervous is like we're approving a PUD and then we're done. We won't see it again. That's what I how I feel like we're getting nervous about this. And I understand you're wanting to know what uses you can put in here. And that I believe is something we should be able to I mean if that's what he's asking for as long as it has to come back to us again so we get to see what we're dealing with.

Well like I just said right there and those are kind of in general but I just want to make sure I want to make because it depends on where you don't bring it like it's a straight zone like it's I mean we're expecting like a presentation like a packet of what you really want to do what your vision is. So, and that would be done with each individual use except they got to be cohesive. That's the problem. Well, we want to know where the buildings are going to go before this all starts. And what the general look is going to be. Sure. But what I was what I was just trying to clarify is, you know, obviously that can take years, right, to get a a shopping center fully built out. And so some of those uses we may not know for three years or four years. That's what that's what we would approve is what these uses. Sorry,

excuse me, not uses. Uh, you know, who's exactly going to go there, right? If we're holding out for an individual coffee shop, we may not know if it's going to be a Starbucks or someone else, but at least we know that coffee shop is an approved use and then the coffee shop is coming back in individually. When we approve design use, like when we do approve design uses, it's still kind of a general overall design. It's not, hey, you can throw any old coffee shop in here or any of this. I mean, it's [clears throat] there is a lot of leeway for branding and signage and this that, but it still has a cohesive look. It's not a hodge podge. Throw everything in. That's the thing. So yeah, then you got hospital, the hotel, the motel. [clears throat] Like I would say no to all that stuff. See, it just depends on where it goes and what it looks like.

Exactly. Motor, vehicle, trailer, campers. Read each line item. Do you want to go line by line here and and you give a thumbs up or a thumbs down or how how can I help facilitate this? I mean, it's going to like it's there's so much there. I mean, how how is city council aside from watching this whole long Well, I I know what in the world like we're even I feel like I'm going to take very detailed notes here as we go line by line and make a you know you're recommending to council. I will either then say planning commission was in agreeance with leaving administrative executive professional medical and research offices or planning commission recommended to pull this line. whatever [clears throat] your recommendation is.

If I mean, if we go forward with this because I I'm still I don't like this. It's it's just it's messy. It's a just a hodgepodge messy way of doing it. It should be cleaned up. It should be a clear list of this is the these are the things that that that planning commission was was okay with because otherwise this whole list is going to get presented to city council and then city council is going to have an hourlong debate about the exact same things we're having right now. It's just how it goes.

Though, like for me personally, I'd love to see the grocery store go in there and to risk the chance of, you know, that store ending up at some development because of the the complications [snorts] that might be created. So, I'm on I get both. Like, I feel like if there's a way that we can help him move forward with a couple of things that I think fit there, but then

not give them Yeah, I mean ideally it comes back as all the others where it's completely planned out, but I get it where they've got a couple of uses that want to go there and not everything. But then you're it is I think this I think it needs to be tabled till next time and come back with a concise list of hey these are the things that we have an idea of. I mean I already told you the things that in general we would be like fine with just come with a nice clean list. So we can say, "Yeah, we're okay with that. Send it to city council. This is like this is just too messy. It's too much." And it just it's a mess.

Yeah, I would concur. I mean, it sounds to me like the applicant has a general idea of what you want and and this list of everything again but the kitchen sink has has just muddied the water. And my suggestion would be that you guys get it, you know, lock it down on what you're specifically looking for and then we can have a a fully informed discussion and make a fully informed recommendation to city council. I'm just still feel like I'm flying blind because you know, you can't we can line item with stuff, but I think you know what you want and us going through this and and our own personal interpretations of what those definitions may be could also continue to to derail the process. I think we could just I mean table it till the next meeting. It's it wouldn't even have to be that long of discussions. We've already beat this dead horse forever. I mean just just clean it up. Make a really nice clear vision. Hey, these are kind of the ideas that we're having.

Yeah. And a good example to your point is, you know, our our grocery tenant won't close on the land until we get zoning in place. they're okay with site design and elevations and so they're okay with that whole process. But it's specifically that their zone that their use can be allowed in the zoning. And so that's kind of what stemmed this whole discussion is, you know, how do we get someone like our grocery store who's a, you know, a national brand that does a lot of these things to actually close on the land so we can get them moving forward and then do the rest of our development at that point. because uh you know if you have a grocery store then the rest of the development is going to look a lot different than if you don't have a grocery store which we all understand that right um

so I think you know we're not trying to do this so that we can get away with [clears throat] whatever we want and do something that the city isn't happy with um we're trying to do this in a way that allows us to move quickly to meet the needs of our ger and other attendants while also still giving the city power to approve or not approve site plan elevations things like that and that was the solution that we came up with working with staff. So that's let's just clean it up that's all. Okay. So on on matters where your role is recommending role um look at tables and ask you know is there is there something that's deficient or missing justify more time or it might be a motion and then you express to the council because the

I think it needs to be tabled and just cleaned up because I think we can I think [clears throat] we can move forward with this easily if it's just cleaned up. I just send that document to city council with a whole bunch of with us with our re or crossing off what's there. I guess I'm kind of seeing where that's going. Like is it going to come back with a smaller list and that's it? Yeah, that's what Can we not make that smaller list right now and save them? Yeah, I think it it [clears throat] is messy. But what's the process the city if it's denied? Let's say is there a waiting period for it to come back to council or what's the go tonight? Tonight there's no approval or denial. Okay. Um there's a motion to either app recommend approval,

right? Recommend denial or to table. Okay.

And when when items are tabled, there's a little bit of a due process concern from legal. Um is it tabled to a date certain? So the applicant and the public have the right to come back and and and be and participate like they are tonight. Right. and and other things like that. And so one of the things you look at on a tableabling is is there is there a code or a standard or something that they've not met or have failed to adhere to that or failed to be aware of that they could do and and bring back to us. Right. And so I think tonight that might be category that I'm thinking of as we're think as we're talking perhaps a tableabling. But yeah, tonight this is the the city council's role on this application is a recommending body to the city council. City council would then require a motion to approve, deny, or also table

to make make it clear. I guess we're asking them to condense their list, table it, condense the list. we have something clear and they could come back in two weeks [clears throat] and articulate what their intentions may be which he's done but it's not in the document just clean the document is that something you want or do you want to say is there more to articulate in the documented what you were saying but but that wasn't in the document these lists are just that you don't want to put there okay so by articulate in the document you mean taking off uses you're looking for a grocery store anchor or etc. with these possible adjacent

I feel I feel like some of these some of these aren't you know if they build an office building on part of that building some of these are going to want to go in there. You know what I mean? I'm just saying I and I think there's not that many to get rid of to be honest with you. That's kind of what I was looking [clears throat] at for move it forward. That's kind of what I was wondering if it's just breaking down the list. I'm I feel comfortable going through that list to break down the list and get rid of the uses that are clearly nos,

you know. I mean, we can give our opinion on it. I mean, they're not going to ask for more than this. Obviously, we're not going to let more than this go through. [snorts] That's been, you know, or at least we're not going to recommend this. We don't get to make that decision. But the coffee shops, the the automobile service stations. I mean, if it's if it's a gas station or something like that, I'm fine with it. I mean, just go through the list and let's just say,

I mean, what do you guys what do you guys think? Do you want to support that? I I uh I mean, what do you want often rather than going through and saying yes or no? So, I I think from a planning standpoint, you can give the city council great feedback on what you think should and shouldn't go there. I think that's a real nice value from this board. And so, if you can if you can provide that tonight, I think it's wonderful feedback. I'm I'm I'm down for it.

But also, I think we need to consider um the anchor the anchor retailer that's going in. They probably have an idea of what types of businesses they want around them to support their business to continue operating in that location. Yeah. Which I I assume it's all the things that you would also want to see here, right? They they don't they don't want some of those you don't want storage units next to them, right? That's not something they would ever want to go next to. So, I think the uses that you would want to approve are the uses that they would also want near them. Yeah. I just don't know if a child care would be conducive to a retailer or

Yeah, there is. I mean, we're seeing we're seeing this. We don't have a lot of these in Utah, but we're seeing more of them coming in that are in, you know, Las Vegas and outside like the Primrose, these kind of nicer higherend that look really nice on the outside. Um, so we are seeing some uses like that. We don't have anybody like that right now. We haven't talked to anybody like that, but we are seeing some really nice high-end that's pushing into Utah as as uh they're expanding and [snorts] see and that's the childcare like if if you built an office building and put a child care center in there for someone to to rent out a space you know it's a permitted use in a PUD and if not they have to come back in and readjust the PUD for something like that. Correct. I mean, you'd have to

a lot of these retailers [clears throat] live and die by the anchor store. And if it doesn't support that anchor store, like a child care and a medical um building, office building is not going to support. Well, they're asking for it. But if I'm just saying it's not going to be I don't see a problem with it going in there as a use, but we got to see where it goes and all that stuff. I just I mean, you can cut off what you want, but Yeah. this commission. I mean, I see a couple and I'm just going to that I feel like don't fit with the grocery store.

If if we're wanting to go through the use list, I let's let's break it down line by line and and start from the top, go through the bottom if that's the direction that okayers want to go. I agree. If you're going to do it, go through the list so we're not starting from the top, administrative, executive, professional, medical, and research offices. I'm going to assume I'm fine with that. Unless you speak up and say let's remove it. I'll assume that you you're okay with you're okay with Okay, I like that. Yeah, I like that. I'm good with that one.

Banking and other financial institutions. Automobile car wash not to exceed four bays. Automobile service stations excluding major repair work such as engine or transmission rebuilding, body and collision repair, frame and heavy duty truck servicing. that one. Would a grocery store potentially have pumps? Uh, yeah, a fuel station. Correct. They would. Yeah. So, like a fuel station or

Yeah, it changing tires, stuff like that. Yeah. Is that what we're talking about? Excludes everything else except for the fuel service station. Just fuel. Yeah. The the the grocery store doesn't operate, you know, major repair work. Just just fuel station. Sell tires, put those on, stuff like that. No. [snorts] Okay, I'm good with it. child daycare or preschool center which meets all state and local regulations

would probably be a no on that consensus of no is I'm okay with that one I mean it better to go in a place like that some in my opinion than the resial neighborhoods I'm I'm fine with it. I'm okay with it. [clears throat] Coffee shops. I'm fine. Like Starbucks. Okay. Yeah, that would include all all coffee shops. I I take it.

Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities, not to include sexually oriented businesses. kind of struggle with that. I don't Yeah. I mean, you don't want them to drop a jelly stone in there. Does sound like you're going to do that, but you don't know. You don't know what you're getting. Yeah. What would be an example that fits into that category? The stone

things like uh mystery rooms, u axe throwing, there's kind of recreational entertainment type facilities, you know, an arcade. Those are the type of uses that would fit within that category. And and obviously the exception doesn't go into the the adult type businesses. It would just be for movie theater. Theater could probably be in there. Theaters some sometimes have size issues that need additional, you know, review.

Still okay with that use there. Okay. Moving on. personal instruction services including gym, dance, Pilates, yoga, and professional schools. Yeah, I'm fine.

Private business and technical schools. Next line item, reception center andor wedding chapel. Okay, they're moving on to restaurants, including full service and quicks serve dining. Restaurants including a drive-thru facility as an accessory use. Restaurants including a drive-through facility as the primary use accompanied by a patio. Feeling okay there? bar establishment which requires the overlay zone [clears throat] approval.

I'd say no [snorts] if they get the overlay. Well, and yeah, it could be a B-Dubz or something like that, right? No, that's a restaurant. It's not a bar. [sighs] Oh,

so staff is so staff is looking at this in light of state code definitions. So, a B-Dubz would be what the [clears throat] state calls a restaurant with bar, which essentially means the state requires that a portion of their proceeds be a certain percentage of their proceeds must never get lower than a percentage of food sales. So, there's not 50/50, but essentially about as much food is sold as as alcohol from a revenue standpoint. Bars have no such requirement. And so bars can can sell, you know, 100% of alcohol. And so the bar establishments end up being a little different than your B-Dubz. They're they're usually, you know, a a location where people come to drink on site, whereas restaurants are come to eat and drink on site. Those are that's my brief summary of the state definitions of of bar and restaurant with bar.

One that liked it, one that did not like it. I don't have a problem with have to pass muster. Yeah, it's got to go through the state. So, I don't I don't see that one happening, but if it if it does, I don't see a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. [clears throat] Just have to get that additional approvals. Yeah, it's got to it's going to be a lot harder process than I mean, they couldn't get one up by exit 13 where there's a lot less people. The chances of going down there is going to be a lot worse,

right? because we're not given an approval for that because it still has to have the overlay zone. So, it's that's got a lot of strings attached to it. We'll leave that one in there. Retail operation of cleaning, laundry, cosmetic, and repair services. Is that like a dry cleaner? Correct. Or a coin operated laundromat stuff like that. Correct. That one I don't really want to see. Yeah, but the barber shops, the beauty salons, stuff like that I'm okay with, but like I don't know. That's how I feel on it. Why are [snorts] they all in the same category? Seem like to be different.

That's copied in just straight from our city code. It's included in that. They're all in that same item. Have um environmental issues while be a good time to break that list out if you want us to. Yeah, I would laundry element separate it. Yeah. What's what's the repair service? What's the repair service? Yeah, serve pro, you know, watch repair, boot repair. It's it's just a something that's fixing things.

Maybe say no to that one. [snorts] I don't know. like I'm okay with with a barber shop or or cosmetology, you know, something along those lines, but with the so the cleaning and the repairing, just general repairing, not so much. The the cosmetic and beauty something I feel like it should be in there. Uh, what about the laundry? Thumbs up, thumbs down. No, I've put that no, that's how I feel. I wouldn't want to see a laundry mat over there. Yeah, I agree. Along those lines. Okay. Retail, sale, and or rental of goods, merchandise, and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building.

Problems with that. Hospital and veterinarian clinic, including overnight care of large animals. Well, it's right by the farm. I feel like that if it's in the right spot, it's okay. Yeah. And there's no boarding. And there's no boarding. I mean, I don't have a problem with the vet being there. It's just it it all it'll all come back to where it has to land on the on the layout of everything, [sighs] hospital, hotel, or motel, mobile.

I I don't know about that one. I mean, you talking about you going to carve it out, you know, for another Hampton or something like that. Not your It's 19 acres. I mean, they have those that are going to be down the road a half a mile closer to the airport. They're going to have hotels there. So, I was kind of back and forth on that one. Commissioner Davis, I I'm not sure there. I'd leave it. And besides, this is why we need the an idea an idea because where are we going to have the parking? Are we going to have enough parking in this 19 acres? I don't think you will for a hotel.

So, I mean those are those are the issues that why we want to see what like Commissioner Anderson was saying this, you know, like no no hotel because there's no we don't know where the parking is going to go. And frankly, we're okay with that recommendation, not the denying the recommendation, whatever the official term would be, because we don't have intent to do hotel or motel in and the hospital. I think that's kind of a a weird one, but I mean like a clinic, a doctor's clinic. Yeah, maybe. I there's not enough room there for a hospital either with a grocery hospital, but could you break out say no to hospital, do a smaller up to 5,000 ft or whatever. Yeah, something like that. That's fine. I mean, it's

maybe just an equestrian writers clinic [laughter] people down there who ride horses sometimes. Somewhere to put thumbs back on [laughter] Arena across the street. From the list, I'll write the word clinic next to that just a smaller scale. Yeah. Urgent care type smaller. I mean this is why you know we would go through this because what what what is going to go there and are you going to have enough parking or is all that stuff hotel or motel I wrote uh recommend to poll that line item there uh mobile food vendor I'm fine with that

I'm I'd say no on that one. I think if we're going to have restaurants and that, I don't see the need to have Yeah. the mobile food vendor option. What if it's Yeah. I mean, if it's in front of the I I don't Yeah, it all depends on where it sits like you've been saying. It It really does. I mean, it just kind of has one. Yeah. I mean, they just they'll move. I mean, it's kind of go everywhere. Yeah, they're mobile. Yeah, they can pull across the street.

And mobile food vendors also uh they benefit from a state law that essentially restricts municipalities ability to regulate them. Um even their licensing starts at the state level. So there's only there's only so many teeth we have on that use because the states embraced it. So they can kind of go in there if they want. Yeah. And for example, one one of the issues is

they don't have to get a business license in Santa Clara, Ivan, St. George, and Washington. Um they can get one within the region. And the other the state says the other cities have to accept that you know the health and and you know uh food prep certifications are good anyway. Okay. And so yeah, they by nature of what they are and how they operate, the traditional model of cities issuing business licenses felt almost egregious against that that use. And and so the state pass laws that tell us how we're supposed to help how we're supposed to help with that.

Motor vehicle, trailer, camper, and recreational vehicle sales agency. No. Yeah. No. Okay, I got that consensus of no there. Retail and or wholesale and rental of goods, merchandise and equipment which may include storage and display outside of an enclosed building. Examples include art shop, bank, beauty shop, bookstore, clothing store, drugstore, florist, laundry, theater, and variety store. take laundry off that list because they took [clears throat] it off the upper list. Yeah, I was going to say that one kind of covered most of them.

I think that's like that doesn't even need to be listed because it already it's duplicated. Okay. Note taking Oh, there's Is there retail up there though? It's just the wholesale thing and the rental of goods and merchandise and equipment. I want that kind of makes it different. [clears throat] They're not the same. Which one does dry cleaning fall into versus doing your laundry?

I think laundromat includes both the the chemical cleaning and dry cleaning as well as the wet cleaning with, you know, your traditional washer dryer. And so I I think the city would interpret those to be the same use. Looks to me, this commissioner, it looks to me like what this one is distinguishing is that it's allowing allowing storage and display outside an enclosed building. I think that's the new one here. And the everything else is just examples, but I think that's what it's getting at is like not only can you allow customers in your store, but actually you can pull some of your goods out in front like an art shop will do. Say no. Oh, yeah. I'm fine with that. I see what you're saying. Like if you're walking down the

the shops at Zion Prominant, how they pull their stuff out. If that's what it is, then yeah, I'm okay with that. That makes sense. My only concern with that one is, you know, if you're walking into a grocery store, they often pull things out, you know, pumpkins or Yeah. No, I understand that. Yeah, I'm good with that one. Yeah, I'm okay with it. Uh, moving on to the next one. State approved [clears throat] and operated liquor store. Do we have a choice on that?

Well, yeah, I will comment on this one. If we asked a state official, they would say that the legislaturator's code says that we don't get to tell them where and when they locate their facilities. Um, the state has tried to work with this city and other cities to come to their bodies and solicit input so that that doesn't feel quite like it's written. And so and so they they've got a practice of coming to us and asking if we want one and if and if we do where and how and what do we need to do to for look and feel. But I would agree that the state law the way it's written says that cities don't get to regulate that.

I mean they they still have to buy the property from the I mean [clears throat] I mean so that's basically up to you. We can't say you can't sell it to them. If this EUP says no liquor store, I think that there's a private zoning problem for the state. But the state and the federal government have sent us letters in the past that say your zoning laws don't preempt state laws or federal laws. And so there's a there's a question of legal preemption there. And I guess it would be resolved depending on what's going on and how how hot the fire's burning about that issue.

Yeah. But I mean like Yeah. So we can't really take it out. Yeah. But I mean and he decides to sell then there's nothing we can do. The legal department will get involved and do our best. [clears throat] I say leave it because we don't have a choice. Okay. Note taken. Lastly, storage units. No. No. Okay. No. No taken. That's that's the list there.

So, it's so basically when whatever we do, we still have to come back in and see site plans where you want to put things. I mean, you'll have your anchor, but then okay, here's you're okay to have your anchor. We want to see what your plans are for the rest of the property, not just this. Okay.

And then we'll we'll decide it later. I mean, we want to see that's how I would take it for this PUD. Yeah. Well, this is what we were okay with. I mean, we'll see what city council says, but we got to be able to see how everything else is going to work because I would say we need to check the the entrances as well once we know where these are going. I mean, those are good spots, but they might not be. You know, if your if your grocery wants to go in that back corner, that that spot's worthless. So, I mean,

yeah. and and that's why the entrances and exits were put where they were because they were approved by the ger to go there. So we tried to meet or we did meet all distance requirements for bull movement right in ride out and so then we ran it by the ger to get their approval to then put them in those spots that are conducive to looping around the center and getting to the grocery and getting people in and out. Okay. Yeah. And that's that's kind of what we want to see. That's the whole point of the PUD. With that, you are going to have to check with Staley Farms north of you as well, just because it's a dirt road access. It's still an access. So, you can't just go by what the grosser needs. Like, you've got to work with the rest of them

with with the driveway issues there. There might be some some wisdom in developing a shared driveway access for both sides and you put it on the boundary line and accomplish both of those. Get it down to one access. I don't know if that's been discussed. Maybe it has.

So with that, thank you. Okay. Appreciate it. Is there a motion? That's what I'm wondering if someone wanted to make a motion based on what we approved and what we didn't and note that it'll have to still come back and go from there. I mean, do they do they generally they're going to need to do like uh um a traffic study and all of that just like normal when it comes back and the land will be developed. So there'll be sidewalks and things like that, curb and gutter.

Correct. So, so if we're going to try and compare the straight zone to PUB, straight zone gives you a class and then the uses within it. You essentially bring what you want and you get to build them at what locations and what colors and shapes and sizes you want, but you still got to meet all the codes and standards. You know, sidewalks have to be the right width and the right materials and the right construction, curbs, gutters, drains, all of that. P essentially is the council or the city giving approvals in exchange for the ability to review orientation of buildings and and entryways, colors and shapes and sizes. And so things that in straight zoning are entirely up to the owner. PD essentially gives you the opportunity to see and look and feel and touch those and but yeah, all of the typical technical standards are still the same. Is there a plan for like a light to go in anywhere?

Light. Traffic light. Yeah.

Traffic lights get planned based on what our traffic engineers call warrants. Warrants are essentially measurements and and traffic counts that say, "Yeah, there's enough left-hand turn movements here in a day that there needs to be a light to allow left hand turn movements with a control signal." Right. And so those get planned based on the traffic load essentially. Um, do we think that more traffic lights are probably the in the future down around that area? Yes. Because of the interchange on the Southern Parkway, the other kind of throughways, you know, the the George Washington Boulevard is is going to someday be an extended very significant east west corridor. And so, yeah, we think there'll be more lights. Do we know exactly where? Are we saying that that it's must be here or there? Not yet.

Thank you. Somebody want to make a motion?

Um, this is Commissioner Mitchell. I'll make a motion. And this is just a recommendation, correct? [clears throat]

recommend approval of Z-25-24, the request to reszone the 19.3 acres. Um item 4B [clears throat] with the add well the conditions fines and the conditions but we also recommended the condition that they coordinate with the neighboring land owners on creating proper inlets and ingress or access. and then um referring to our modified exhibit with a list of what can and can't go in. I'll second his motion with with a question here. Just point of order to make sure we're clear. We have this PUD again. They're going to be coming back now. We're just kind of skipping this this

We added a step. We've added a step. We are adding that step. That's what I that I [clears throat] didn't hear that that they still for this PUD approval, they still need to come back and we're still looking at everything just like you would with a PUD. Yep. So, correct. If approved, if your recommendation goes to the council and there's an approval vote of some some final product, we're going to have to bring back site plans. It's [clears throat] to show you the paints and the colors and the shapes and the sizes, all of those things in addition to meeting city standards and all of the technical. So,

yeah, this is just the zone change. This this if approved applies the PUD zoning. So puts it into that category of of for planning, you know, more planning than straight zoning. And it might be the current owner or it may be somebody that purchases land on the basis of that decision that ends up at the podium to show you the look and feel. But yeah, they're going to have to come back and and get approval for those things before they get to build them. We're approving the use, the general uses, but that's that's where it ends. Correct. second. Can you can you just reiterate what the new what was removed from the list as part of your motion?

You [clears throat] betcha. Great question. [snorts] I Let me see through my notes here. Um I can zoom in here. First item was retail operations and then we want to scratch or recommend to scratch cleaning and laundry and repair services which is right here. This item the second item was hospital clinic. We wanted to add the word clinic or smaller scale type hospital uses there. And then recommend to scratch motor vehicle, trailer, camper, and recreational vehicle sales agencies.

What about hotel, motel? Were you scratching that? Have a note to scratch hotel or motel as well. And also in the retail here uh to scratch laundry out so that it matches the above storage units was recommend to remove that one as well. That those are my notes. Okay. So we have a first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I.

Commissioner Anderson. Nay. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Tupo. I.

Commissioner Bulock. I am an I as well. And this will go to city council with our recommendations for approval. Item 4 C is a consideration and recommendation to city council amending the Washington city code title 9-8A detached accessory dwelling units. I guess we'll turn the time over to someone. Elden So, these next two items are to amend the detached accessory dwelling unit. Uh, and the reason they're broken into two items is one's for the the R1 zoning and then the second one is for the RA zoning. Both applicable to the detached accessory dwelling units. We're proposing to keep those codes the same in both of those zones and we'll we'll dig in here. The scratched items are what staff is recommending to scratch out of the code and the red is what we're proposing to add to the code. The first item is number two there. A detached accessory dwelling unit is defined as an adjunct living unit with a sleeping area, a bathroom, accept acceptable kitchen facility with a commercially manufactured cooking appliance and proposing to scratch has no attached garage or carport and is detached from a primary residence on the same lot. Maybe I should backtrack as well. Um, city council had this on their work session uh the end of December

and um had some recommendations as well. Staffs included those and we're here to get planning commission feedback which they wanted before they made a decision on this as well. The next uh change is again on the next number two there. The proposed lot for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall contain an already existing single family dwelling unit. And we're proposing to scratch and the lot must be a minimum of 10,000 square ft in size, which would in essence if they can fit it on their lot, meet setbacks and distance requirements, why not put it on the lot there? and please stop me at any time if if we want to dig in and discuss and and clarify any questions. Number three, we're proposing to scratch any accessory dwelling unit on a qualifying residentially zoned lot being added to an existing single family residence shall in no case be greater than 1,000 total square ft. Accessory dwelling unit square footage added to all other existing or future structures will not cover more than 30% of the rear yard area. And we're proposing that to read the square footage of detached accessory dwelling units shall meet the following criteria. Attached porches and/or garages are not calculated in the detached accessory dwelling unit square footage but are calculated towards the side and rear yard percentages. The detached accessory dwelling unit square footage when calculated together with all other existing or future structures shall not cover more than 30% of the rear yard area or 50% of the

sideyard area. And that'll mirror the detached garage structure. So the um seen more just tandem together. Not much difference there. Council did recommend um to to go up to 1500 square feet in size. Uh with that, we're proposing a tiered structure system. So zones R16 through R12, we're proposing to keep it the existing 1,000 square ft in size. And then once we get to the R115 and larger zones can then go up to 1500 square feet of floor area there. Alvin, as Commissioner Davis, just a quick question on that. Are you omitting R2 intentionally or is that just an oversight in that first block?

Say that one more time. Are you omitting R2 zoning? The R2 zone intentionally. I'm just looking at it in comparison to the general plan when when you're listing R-16 or all that. Yeah. R2 was never included in the original um code, you know, and R2 in essence it is, you know, two units on the lot. Um, so they wouldn't need a detached accessory dwelling. Okay. So it wouldn't qualify by the question there. Make sure

this is commissioner year. I also have a quick question about this one. Elden, in your work meeting with the council, when they wanted [clears throat] to go up to 1,500 square feet, did they distinguish that that should be limited to R115 or was that staff who's making that distinction? Great comments. Um, that that was a staff recommendation. Um, it kind of caught staff off guard in that meeting. We staff had no intent to increase the square footage. came up in that work session and and uh this tiered structure is um just to keep some planning principles in place as we move forward is is staff's thought there.

Why what what's staff's thinking? Why make that distinction if if all the other setbacks meets all the requirements? Why not have a if it's big enough and the yard is big enough, why not have a threebedroom in there instead of a twobedroom? Yeah, you know, great question there. Um, staff isn't too concerned with the larger lot sizes. You know, 15,000 square foot lots, those are pretty big. Um, a lot of the downtown area, R16. Um we've recently um as as more residents have built garages and ADUs in their backyard um we have received complaints from those neighbors um and wanting space. So you know staff wanted to to find that middle ground and accommodating ADUs but yet still maintaining those planning principles as well. belt kind of tiered structure. [clears throat]

Also, at what point are we making little tiny miniature subdivisions by putting a 1500 foot house besides another house?

But but there might be other ways to do it like increasing the setbacks and the distance between lots that's required. Um because there are plenty of larger lots that are not R115 where this wouldn't be an issue. And if we're really trying to address the housing issue, I I think we need to make it possible. And so I think if there's other ways to meet that same concern without going to the broader classification of the zone, I think that would leave more options for people who like me have a big lot and could easily do a 1500 square foot and provide more housing um without having to go um against the the you know fighting with the zoning thing there. So, I wonder if there's other ways. Did did staff think about that?

We did think about the R2 um and not wanting to impose, you know, an R2 and try to accommodate more of an a true accessorary [clears throat] use to the primary res. The thinking on that [clears throat] it's a valid concern though. What what are your thoughts about like if if you're increasing the distance between the lots, if you're increasing the setback or whatever else is appropriate, whatever the whatever the other dynamics are, and you could do a ratio of um size of the ADU in relationship

to the primary dwelling unit to make sure that it's all done proportionately without having to go to the zoning classification because I think there are lot there I know there are lots of places where it would be appropriate to have the bigger one if that's what council wants to go up is 1500. I think there are lots of places that'd be appropriate in, you know, R112. So, [clears throat] why not why not do that is my my thought. Yeah. Other than the R12, you know, we're just getting smaller in lot size. Um, [clears throat] yeah, you know, it's we're just trying to take a broad approach and make the best policy to apply to the entire city. It's it's a juggle.

A lot of the R112 in town currently, even though it's zoned R12, are like halfacre lots. Almost all the ones that I've looked at that have been done recently. R12 are actually halfacre lots and are bigger than R15. Yeah. Just [snorts] saying.

Yeah. I mean, I like how clean this one is, but I really I'm just truly [clears throat] just thinking about housing and what we're trying to do. And there's there are lots of families who a 1500 foot dwelling would work for that a,000 foot dwelling won't. And if there are appropriate places to place that, it might be worth the additional work of changing the other requirements around it rather than making it so broad and the zoning. Although it is nice and easy and short and I like that how clear it is. But you know I I I think if there are appropriate places where we can do this to meet other famil family's needs, I I think we should consider it.

I think I think you should move R112 in with R15 on that item. [clears throat] Yeah. I just especially if someone builds an ADU, you know, because they're trying to rent or whatever. I mean, the only people you can rent a th00and foot ADU to is is a single person.

You know, if they the minute they get married and have one kid, they can't fit into a thousand square foot place. So, it kind of defeats the whole purpose. I mean, a thousand foot thing is fine if it's your mother-in-law, but it's not fine if, say, you know, your kid and their wife and child want to want to live somewhere and it just doesn't work and you won't even be able to rent it. Like, it has no rental value because it's too small. I think you should put R112 in with R15.

It's interesting discussion. Um, in the R16 zone, so let's say we got a neighborhood that's zoned R16. It's also possible that you get a lot that's the same size as an R12 or an R15 lot. So within the lots that created, there's also size variability. And so one of the planning concepts that I think Ellen was referencing is even though there might be enough space, we don't want you to be able to make a house that's bigger than all your neighbors just because you ended up with the big lot, right? And so there's a little bit of a uniformity and consistency principle at play there, too. But again, I I think this is good commentary and I think the city council will appreciate it. I mean, most R16 lots you're not going to be able to put a on anyways. There's not going to be room unless it just happens to be a big lot in an R16. Even R18, you're really not going to have room to put an ADU on either. So, we're really talking about R110, R12, R15 for the most part,

because it it does feel like we're starting to see more of the request for the R16, R18 in this subdivisions we're seeing come at us. There's nothing to say they shouldn't be allowed to do. It's just practicality wise there just not going to be space for it. So I I don't Yeah, I don't think you're going to find the space. But

like I just think what if it was based on lot size and size of the and ratio to size of the the primary dwelling. You know, I think if that was the category, then there were a lot of people who would be able to to offer more housing within the existing infrastructure that we have rather than having to go out to other new subdivisions and all that additional infrastructure and cost and all that. [sighs] Great feedback notes in there.

Uh, moving on to number four there. All detached accessory dwelling units shall be limited to a maximum of 17 feet in height and an okay shall the roof exceed the ex the height of the existing residence proposing that to be scratched and replaced with the following the height of detached accessory dwelling units shall meet the following criteria with the the same tiered structure there um R16 through the R12 um 17 feet in height which is existing code and um you know if you're recommending to pull the R12 down to the larger I'll make that same note here to to drop that down the R12 to be included with the R115 and larger with a side or rear setback of 3 ft. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to a maximum of 20 ft. Additional height may be acquired by moving the building into the lot. For each foot added to the side and or rear yard setback beyond 3 feet, an additional foot may be added to the height of the building. But in no case shall the detached accessory dwelling unit be taller than 25 ft tall. So in essence, if a unit set at 3 ft, they're maxed at 20 foot tall. And then if they go in a foot, so it's four feet off the property line, they could then go up to 21 foot and so on. But in no case can they be taller than 25 ft?

Elden, I have a question on that. Just I don't know why, but what if it's a walk out basement? Is it 25 ft from the from the front from the street view? Is that what it is? I just wanted to clarify. Property line on the front. Correct. Well, that that's where the house um height is is taken from. The ADU would be taken from grade.

So, if you had if you were building a a shop underneath and you put a ADU on top, it can't be over 25 or 17 ft. So, you'd have you still can't have a a shop underneath. And then if you had a walk out basement, you couldn't have something underneath it for storage. And then street height, it wouldn't count cuz you go from grade of where if the ADU is visible from the street, the height would be taken from street view. Okay, that's what I was wondering is it is from street view. Correct. Okay, should probably clarify that there. H probably should clarify that the height the height was just that it was from street view.

If you had a walk out basement, you build a apartment in your backyard. If it's street view, so you got the distance of your basement plus the 17 ft. Is that what I'm understanding? That's how I would see it. So that's why you're saying clarify. So it's not like you could make Yeah, but if you had parking underneath it, you could do parking underneath. We're going to get into this all night.

So this is the great roof height debate applies to lot [clears throat] not so much on accessory dwelling units as it is just on the the the the original structure. And um usually the builder and owner want to measure from a different location than maybe the city does. And so we've adopted a code that's essentially established how we measure building heights where and I don't remember it offhand as far as verbatim but essentially looks at a couple of points tries to take the street height but also indicates actual points of reference that are going to be uniform throughout every lot and then draws a line and measures from there on up. And so we've got a code that tells us how to measure that. And I'm sure we could debate that all again many times.

Yeah. I was just curious. Yeah. The the best example is when you're downhill from a walkout basement property, it looks way bigger than it might from when you're walking up to their front door, right? And it's because you're at the you're on a slope that's lower than where the where the enters, right? And so perspective of where you're looking really changes how you how you measure that.

Um number five, proposing to to remove detached accessory dwelling units shall be located at least 10 ft away from the existing single family residence and can be located no closer than 5T to any side or rear property line. you know, those setbacks were addressed above. We're proposing let's get a little closer to the property line up to 3 ft. Um, and removing the 10-ft separation from the existing house. And it'll read, "The setbacks of detached accessory dwelling units shall not be closer than 3 ft to any site or rear property line. And in accordance with the criteria of this chapter, corner lots shall maintain the required street frontage setback applicable to the zoning designation at the proposed location. Number six, proposing to remove um or scratch the wording of one additional on-site parking space shall be provided in addition to the required parking standards for the single family residential lot. The parking space shall be a minimum of 9 ft wide and 19 ft long. Replacing it with the proposed on-site parking shall be provided in addition to the single family residential requirements in accordance with the following criteria. One stall for 1,000 square ft and two additional spaces for units exceeding 1,000 square ft. And that concludes the proposed changes there. Happy to answer any follow-up questions you may have.

Elden. Um, why does this say residential agricultural? This just for RA zone or was that a typo? We're proposing to amend both. This is all right. In the next sections, they're both the same changes. Yes,

this is Commissioner Yur and I just want to reiterate a similar comment to what I made before that I really think that we will get more response to this. There will be little pockets of additional people who can do this if this was based more on lot size and the size of the primary residence rather than zoning because there are so many different sizes and scopes and scales and neighborhoods that are zoned one way. And I I think that it's I don't think it we need to paint with that broad of a brush if we can address the concerns in that other way. I think it will end up having the result of many many more of these being able to come in and and bigger ones where it's appropriate. So, I just wanted to re reiterate that comment. So, if you could change this, you rather than identifying the R16, you you would say let's identify a 6,000, let's put a square footage to the lot size and and maybe the primary residence size as well, just to kind of keep it in scale. But yeah, I think that that there are a lot of variation in lot sizes and I love the ADU thing that we're doing. I think it's going to meet a lot of people's needs. I'm thinking about it because I'm personally preparing to build an ADU on my property and um the ADU on my property, I could go bigger. I'm on an acre, but I would be limited by this. Um and so I've been thinking about that a lot. And so, yeah, I think ba basing it on the lot size in conjunction with the home size or something else that you know would be appropriate to keep it in scale. I think that there are pockets of neighborhoods where we'll see a lot more of it.

Yeah. What's the overall consensus on that? Planning commissioners, you see eye to eye or

he's right. The problem [snorts] is is policing it is a little bit harder. It's it's easier to issue permits based on zoning. But but he is right. I mean, you know, he he might have an acre lot and it might be in an R110 zone for who knows. It's so it obviously it in theory in pract and in practice it works better if if you're dictated by how much room you have on the lot, you know, which we already have percentages and so forth that dictate that. It might just be harder for you guys to police as all. That's the only drawback to doing that way. I think square footage for the main home is already record. So maybe take that into consideration percentage of that.

I think maybe you could say I mean and again this is maybe open up a can of worms but maybe you could have exceptions for lots that are significantly larger than what their zoning are that they could be reviewed on a case by case basis or something like that. I don't know. I think that would work. Yeah, that that way you can you don't have to change the whole entire Hey, a oneacre lot and I'm on an R110. I want to do 1500 square feet. I mean, [clears throat] I think you still have to meet the the percentages of sideyard, backyard, all that, which still limits what you can put back there.

Yeah, I just think that should apply also to the height as well as the size, all of it. I think it as long it'll keep it proportionate. But I like that idea. keeps it easier to enforce, but it creates an exception for everybody else who wants to do that because there there's not a lot that'll be that way. I mean, you'll have like you like you're saying, you'll have the pockets of it, but if someone wants to come and apply and go through the process of whatever that is asking for an exemption because it met those rules and just cuz it's in that zone doesn't mean it'll fall that way. I like that. I mean, it puts more burden on staff, but they got enough to do, right?

Yeah. So, would staff then govern those situations, right? or does that have to come before the planning commission and then we have a thousand more applicants because of the situation? I don't think you'll have very many but I think it will help in you know the few instances that's just is there a way to staff authority to allow that based on the exemptions and it doesn't need to come through committee and all that kind of stuff when why not just make it a specific I'd have to meet [clears throat] a little harder

yeah it would be difficult to manage yeah and I worry you know about going away from the uniform formity, you know, someone buys into a R110 zone, R18 zone. It's, you know, Well, how about this? You could you could say, you know, you could have exceptions if that that they can qualify for say the R115 um you know, the larger size, the 1500, if if the lot size is equivalent to an R15 or Yeah. you know, it just lets them bump up one zone thing if the lot size is big enough to have fit an R15. Need an additional permit or anything. Just like, you know, you can still fit just by looking at the the law and it's fits into

Hey, my lot would have been R15 or it would have been bigger. Let you just because then it's not an unlimited amount. It just lets you bump up one category. So, just based off of lot size. Yeah. just like these are these are the categories but then you just say you know you can apply you can apply for variance to go to the next category above if your lot size is equal to or greater than than you know the R115 size or 12 if we make it R12 I just authorize it instead of making go to variant yeah I yeah you're right authorize it like if the lot size is the same size as R12 R1 whatever is our bigger category then it can qualify for the bigger category.

Yeah, I like that's I like that a lot. Yeah, great great feedback note taken there. Okay, comments, suggestions. Thank you. This is a public hearing, right? So, I'll open this up to the public hearing if you'd like to come up and speak.

Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. My name is Carrie Chamberlain. Uh, I live at 138 North, 100 East, basically right across the street from you here. [clears throat] This is my primary reason for being here tonight. Um, we've lived in Washington for uh we've lived in the St. George area for 40 years. Uh, we've lived in Washington for 35 years. We've lived in the current house for about 27 years. Um, raised all my daughters here. And, uh, when we moved to St. George, there was Harman's and Albertson's uh were the only two grocery stores and I think Kmart was just starting in that new uh plaza down there. So that gives you a little bit of history of uh I think St. George proper was about 35,000 people back then.

[clears throat]

Um, so when we purchased this property uh from Stapley's years ago, there weren't any fences around the property. It was grape vines and uh those kinds of things. Um uh all of the lots up and down the street here were meticulous uh grass lots. Uh nobody had dirt lots or anything like that. um those people unfortunately aged out and some have sold and some of their children have taken over the properties. [clears throat] So, we've seen kind of a decline in what things look like. Um a good friend of mine, Burke Staley, said uh one time that uh good fences make good neighbors. And as soon as our neighbors started to pile up piles of um car tires and these kinds of things, why we put up some nice vinyl fences so that we could keep our backyard looking nice and we could be presentable and we could have uh family gatherings and and events. And uh I think Mr. Mitchell and his uh now wife I think came to some parties in my backyard at one time when I was over some youth programs years ago. Um a few years ago, my neighbor two doors down from me, if you can just bear with me, there's a point to all this. Uh he said, um uh I just I'm surprised at the height of this metal building that's gone up behind my property. And uh I says, "Yeah, I am too. That's now built right up against the property line and that now becomes part of my backyard vision is this steel building that's going up." And so I called Mayor Nielson and I [clears throat] said, "Hey, I'm concerned that this guy is building

this. He's already poured the slab and it's right up against the property line and uh he's already building the building. Does it even meet code?" And by this time, by the time they got the code person out there, apparently, uh, the building was built. And the message that I got from Mayor Nilson was that it doesn't meet code and it doesn't meet the offset, but there's not really anything we can do right now because the building has been built. Like, well, what do you do? Well, so we we feed our oleanders more. You know, we do what Disneyland does, right? You just cover it up. So, I talked my neighbor into letting the the palm granite trees grow higher so we don't have to look at his this guy's building. Uh, so in the winter, we get to look at his building and all the other buildings I'm going to talk about here in a minute in the industrial downtown Washington. I'm being very sarcastic, but it's starting to remind me of what it looks like up behind Wendy's in St. George. [clears throat] So, apparently there was nothing that we could do about that. Um uh then not too long after that uh a neighbor not directly behind us but just up one lot but that's still part of his lot is adjacent to our lot built a big blue steel building that's bigger than the building down here. And the message that I got was that the codes had changed now. And I'm seeing that happen again. We've gone tonight. I'm shocked. I have to tell you, I am shocked to hear that we're going from a five-foot offset to a three-foot offset. You can't even swing. If the if my neighbor built a fence, this guy's back door would open and hit the fence. Do you realize, you know, it's it's it's not so much about the building, it's what other people have to look at. Um,

so this blue building over here is half one color, half another color. Uh, I'm not sure what they do in the building. I to be honest with you, um we've dealt with people having residences and people living in trailers and we've had to call and have people come out and kick people out of living in residences behind their houses, which I guess isn't code. Nevertheless, uh tonight I just took a quick accounting just because I want you to get a feel. There are 14 vehicles parked outside of this building. Now, these aren't vehicles being worked on. These are stored vehicles. Uh there's a pile of tires that's probably 20 foot around and maybe about eight or 10 feet high. Big black tires. 14 vehicles. One is a bread truck that I don't maybe they're going to turn it into something. I don't know. Um so uh that so that happened um two properties up now. So that's that's the building with the 14 cars. Now the second property up to that now is building another building steel building structure that's higher than the blue steel building structure. now, which I'm uptight a little bit because my pecan tree can't hide all that and then I'm going to have to plant something else to hide all that. And uh I called about it and just said, "I'm surprised. What are the codes? Does it even meet code?" because Mayor Nelson said that this and that's that's about seems like it's six or eight feet shorter didn't meet code back then and it's very evident to me that the codes are changing and I'm hearing

that tonight that we're we're saying let's let's move them closer to the property lines and let's let them go bigger and if and I think I heard you say that if they move further away from the line they can even go higher. Did I misunderstand that? That they if Well, maybe I misunderstood that. Nevertheless, they're in the they're in the midst of building another steel structure next to the other steel structure that's higher than those. And um uh um so that's my that's my concern. I just I I I I there was a comment made earlier about um that maybe people don't want to come to Washington because we're making it too hard and uh for them to come in or to build and so they're going to go somewhere else. Uh um if you go to the Walmart in Hurricane, they have nice tree landscaping in their parking lot. If you go to the Walmart in Bloomington, they have nice tree landscaping in their parking lot. If you go to ours, there are no tree landscaping in the parking lot. I remember all that debate. I don't know how many of you were around, but you know, if I go to Santa Clara, they've got nice trees down their their middle drive. If I go to St. George, they've got nice tree landscaping down their middle drive. I remember the debate that we had here about the trees going down the middle of our of our telegraph and people didn't want it because it might block the view of their businesses and what have you. But I just I appreciate the slowing down a little bit and being intentional about what we're planning and what we're trying to do. Uh I think people will come and I want to support

that. Now, when I I'm going back a little bit, but when I complained [clears throat] to Mayor Staley about this, he sent out your code person to check on that second building that I told you, the bigger structure, the the tallest of the three. And [clears throat] apparently he he called me back. He was very nice. I can't remember his name. Can you tell me who it was? Uh anyway, uh the mayor called him and said, "Could you please go check on this?" And he did. And he called me back. He was very nice and professional and he said, [clears throat] "Uh, it meets code." And so I complained a little bit and I just said, "My gosh, you know, is there a code for how high I can build a fence to have to hide the steel structures that are right up against my property line? You know, this is the view." And he says, he says, you know, Carrie, we're just trying to provide housing for our kids and family who need additional housing. And I said, I am all about the cassitas. I'm all about somebody. We have a halfacre lot. If we wanted to, we could plow a driveway and we could apply and plow a driveway and put a cassita. I suppose I'm hearing that maybe we could do that in our backyard. Uh, I I would like to see if these people are going to house their kids and family. Maybe they are in these still structures. I'm being sarcastic and I shouldn't be, but but that's I don't think the steel structures are in that same category as cassitas and and living structures for for families and whatnot. I would just ask that you would you would consider that. I find it very hard to believe that any of you, maybe some of you have a large steel structure and maybe some of your neighbors have done

that, but I just find it hard to believe that any of you would be happy. Um, if somebody built a 25- ft uh the one I measured the other day, the first one was 16T. The other two, uh, one is higher than that and then the other one's higher than that. You can see them. I've t I took pictures tonight. I took pictures of all the cars and and the tires and the convex storage containers. We can hide those behind a fence. [clears throat] Um, I will tell you that the tendency uh for individuals that have the larger properties, at least where I live, is to put things right up against the fence. It's it's not there's not an offset. It's like they want to and I don't blame them. They want to get the most storage out of what they do, you know, and what they're trying to to do uh with their shops and whatnot. So, I love people to be able to use their property for what they want. But I I just would encourage you to to as you're thinking through this process of of what things look like and the profile of things and what we want our downtown Washington to look like eventually. We know, don't we, what's happened in the past when we've moved on things and then they were torn down and covered with dirt. You all remember this, right? The cement slab right down here that there was so many complaints that Mayor Nielson had him haul in truckloads of dirt to cover up the cement to make it look like a vacant lot. Do you remember that, right? Um that happened. And uh you know, I'm not blaming anybody, but I just I I think it's important as we take these steps to do it like you're doing and slow down the process or at least be

a little bit more intentional. Um cuz I I'm not sure what what's going to happen. So, I just wanted to just share some feelings from someone who, you know, I guess what I'm using my backyard for are family events and and uh and celebrations and these kinds of things. And it's not for storing uh cars and making shops in my backyard. And I don't have anything any against somebody that's doing that as long as it's doesn't turn into some kind of an industrial looking area. And that's that's what it feels like to me. One real quick thing and then I'll sit down. Uh I got my bachelor's degree in sociology and uh a minor in sociology and a major in psychology and a master's in social work. All of our textbooks talk about what happens to the city center. The city center starts out with the affluent. This this is hundreds of years old. The affluent, they live close to the city, but the more money they make, they start to move out and they move out and they move out and then the city center turns into what? It deteriorates um and the more affluent move further away. They have they have the ability to drive and to commute and to come into town. Well, now we're seeing the same things happening in St. George. They're trying to what? rehabilitate the downtown area. That's what they want to bring people back downtown. People don't want to go downtown. There's nothing down there. Everything's run down, but they're building apartments and different things to rehabilitate the downtown.

And it just I don't know. I it feels like maybe we're in that process. I'm just seeing deterioration of properties and lack of code enforcement um and bigger structures and these kinds of things that I think eventually, you know, uh people would want to move away from. I don't know. So, I just wanted to share that with you. If you [clears throat] if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them or any clarifications. I've spoken too long, but those that's how I'm feeling and I feel like you should take some of those things into consideration. I think the three I'll tell you right now, I think the three-foot is far too close. I think people have a tendency to want to build right on the line. And I don't even know if it if if a door could swing open without hitting somebody's fence if they're sitting on a three-foot. And that's what people do. If they have a halfacre, they want to take advantage of their space and they're going to build on the line. That's what they'll do cuz I've seen it. So, thank you,

Sher Tate. Um, [clears throat] so I just want to kind of echo what he said and what I said earlier about the hodge podge. Um, I'm trying to understand all these new changes and and why. Um, I understand, you know, you have property and you could build something, but I'm like 25 feet, like I I [clears throat] know they're not all metal buildings and I've seen some improvement, but Washington City was known as the pretty little town. And what where Carrie's referring to is this road right here on where the city office is. You drive up, it was just this was the pristine, beautiful thing. And we are getting away from that. And we can say, "Oh, yeah, it's changed." But we go into little pretty little towns like Richfield and those where everybody's still kind of maintaining that look. And so some of these things I'm trying to understand like I understand cassitas. I understand like we have a big lot cuz there were really big lots. Like my mom and I were talking we had an acre and it's still there and behind this home that we lived in. It's it's a big garden spot and they could build apartments and and something. But I'm just trying to understand like are you just getting so much like we want to build this big twotory whatever in our backyard like I don't know how you could even do this if you could but like to match roof lines even or make things you know consistent with what's there and not get so where you drive into town like I'll use the airplane hanger that's now the furniture store like when that went in I was like what are we doing on our telegraph streets? So, I don't know. I just think I know people have property and they have rights, but let's be really, again, thoughtful on our pretty little town and what we're allowing to come in and take away from our, you know, Carrie's backyard or my backyard. I had a chicken

coop build up, you know, but that's a whole other story. So, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for recommendation on this guys or if you have anything else you want to add to it.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I'm curious. I mean, I I get the statements that were made. So, an accessory the ADU accessory dwelling unit be a shed, a shop, a garage. Not necessarily. It has to be a dwelling unit. Has to be built to provide the minimum um features of a dwelling unit. There's got to be plumbing. There's got to be kitchen, a commercial kitchen. Okay. So, so so a metal building with a hot plate approved for an accessory 12. Accessory 12. Okay. I wanted to make that clear because that was my

thoughts was when you're building an accessory dwelling unit, you're meant to dwell in there. It's not to store or to a garage or a metal structure. It is a residence. Now, does that guarantee the occupants in there? It would be need to be built to the technical specifications for a dwelling unit. Now, if they just want to store stuff there, there is an accessory garage. There are other accessory buildings that can qualify on a residential lot that could store stuff. And

so, um, this one is looking at the the accessory dwelling unit provisions, um, specifically detached units, but there's attached dwelling units that we've got some of those that are happening that probably would have similar discussions because you the the attached unit and the original structure from the 80s look very different, right? and shapes and sizes. And so

this one will also require that there be the standard living features of a of a dwelling house or apartment, right? So bedrooms, bathrooms, cook facilities. There's and there's no way to really govern the type of material that they build those out of unless you live in a HOA. It could adopt that. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. It hasn't.

I mean, in this [clears throat] case, we don't have to do some big broad adoption, but a simple line about being of the same character and quality as the primary residence. And I know that that makes it a little more expensive to build, but I think that's a pretty good compromise. Like it it does affect the neighborhood by having more density, having more stuff. And I understand the need for housing. It does seem like we should put something in there about being of the same character and nature as the existing residents. I think that would be a good long-term move.

No, I completely agree because you don't want them dropping sea containers. see in other places there are, you know, I can see this being problematic for HOAs. Well, and I mean, probably what's going on here is somebody's using the ADU code to build a big old shed and they're putting a toilet in, they're putting a stove in, and that's it. And like then it's all storage. And so I I think we should get in front of that and have an additional requirement about the aesthetic of it with you can also build a storage. You don't have to put a toilet. Uh, see there's Yeah, you can build a steel building behind your house. Yeah. And it doesn't have to be an ADU,

right? So, you can't really stop that unless your HOA has something to say about that. And there's some pretty nice barnaminiums.

You can go different ways. I mean, like Hurricane for example, they they don't do anything. And they do have some really oddlooking random things in the backyard built out of all sorts of materials. St. George, their code now has it where it's got to be built out of the same materials as the house, at least if it's an ADU. Um, personally, I wouldn't build one that that didn't look, you know, good or didn't look like went with house, but plenty of people would. But [clears throat] that I mean that's an example of two ways to do it. As far as the height, I mean I was really trying to wrap my head around this based on you know what he was saying just just doing the numbers. So the 17t height just so everybody understands what that means that that doesn't mean the walls are 17t tall. That means that the roof the top of the peak of the roof is 17t tall which is a one-story house at 9 ft with a six with a 712 pitch roof. So, it's like a little teeny house. Plus, you got a six foot tall block wall and you know, you're only going to see three feet of the wall and the rest of it is a peaked roof going up in in his circumstance. And if it's taller than that, he's like they've obviously got something built not to code or whatever that's a lot taller than that.

But what we're talking about here, yeah, or a shed that's a taller code or something. But what we're talking here 17 ft is 9 foot ceiling, 712 pitch roof, you know, one level thing. The 25 foot that does get a little bigger. If it's a onele house, that would allow someone to do a 12ft pitch roof like let's say they're trying to match their house or whatever if that's what their house has. But again, you're still starting at your normal wall height going up to a peak roof. The only way you would get something that that looks like really really tall. And I have seen some people build some of these, you know, close to the line and so forth would be if they put a garage with an ADU above it. You can barely squeeze it in in 25 ft, but you're talking a a 9 ft garage, you know, 12ft floor, 12in floor trusses, an 8ft ceiling, and a 612 roof. So, it can be done, but it's a stretch. And I have seen some people do it. So if you go to the 25 foot thing, then that's that could be possible.

If you don't want to have ads above garages, then the 25 ft thing is is what's allowing that. I I could chirp [clears throat] in proof to 25 ft. We will see twostory ADUs being built, right? I'm just But it can only be 1,000 square feet. or 1500 square feet. But the the garage over a garage, I don't it kind of [clears throat] depends if your backyard drops off. That's why I'm That's why I asked about the elevation of the street line. Well, again, if you're talking 25 ft, it's it's also got to be in too though to get that 25 ft, right? It can't be on the 3T. You got to come over so far. Yeah.

To in order to get the height of it. So, it's going to help. And that's on all setbacks, not just Right. So, I mean, it does help. To get 25 ft, you're going to have to be 10 feet in, which ironically, if you're 10 feet in from the property line, then it's the same setbacks as a regular residential house, which can be 35 ft tall. So, I mean, still within the the realm of normal. And in the code, it does say that the roof can't be higher than the existing house. It can't be bigger than the existing house. You can't have more people live in it than the existing house. I mean, there's already a bunch of that stuff there. Yeah. So, and of the stuff that's happening downtown. I mean, that's I'm I'm

That's not to say that your neighbor didn't do something totally random, but and that's and that's that's also the problem with not having the good and the bad of having HOAs. You know, nothing here in the old part of town has HOAs. Just to clarify, to get 25 ft, they go 8 ft off the property line. Okay. [clears throat] 3 ft's 20 foot. Yeah. But again, at 10 feet, you could attach it to the house and go 35 ft. So, with existing code, are there I'm curious if there are any concerns on or opinions from the council on

similar to what St. George has where there's a little bit of governance for the aesthetic where it needs to align with the existing materials of the primary residence. I think you could say that with the ADU. I mean, but you're still have people build shed. You the shed thing. I don't think we can deal with that tonight. That's a whole separate issue and we can't this code right here. I think we can do every place that has a that has an HOA is going to require that anyways. It's that big of a stretch. But also HOAs aren't going to allow you to build an ADU anyways. So yeah,

it would hurt. I I think it might help and I think we want people to use this and we want it to be perceived favorably. You know, I like telling my community members about it even though it means that more density in my neighborhood because there's such a need for housing for our kids and their kids. I think it's a really great I want it to look terrible maneuver and I want it to look good. I want it to have a good feel. I want people to be excited about it and get on board with it and not be complaining that somebody put up a double wide out there, which they could do. I I don't think we want to do that. So I I think a line in there about the aesthetic aligning with the original materials of the home would be a good idea. I guess not a bad idea.

No, I concur. Sim, you know, same material, similar look and feel as the primary residence. Use the have to do a traffic. Great comments. I'll I'll make a note there on that. Making it structure.

So the other concern that uh that Carrie had was the setbacks. Um that one I think I'm kind of mixed on, right? Because you do when you have a subdivision, you'll have a 10 foot or you know the 5 foot or whatever. But I have built ADUs on people's property where we you had to come in to the planning commission to get the approval to push closer. And then it was the neighborhood came and if none of the neighbors cared, great. It went up. Here it seems, if I'm reading this right, we eliminate that portion, right? You're just automatically allowed to go up to 3 ft to the property lines, right? Is there any concern about that? I mean, the most part on any R110 or R12 lot, if you don't have a three-foot setback, you're not going to be able to fit it. I mean, Washington City is the only city in the county that that does not allow a three-foot setback. Every other city in the county has been three foot set back for a long time

on any and I think going back to if we govern the type of materials that are used and it looks like a home, it's probably not as intrusive as an ugly industrial shed right on the property line. All right, we'll look for a motion on it. It's Commissioner Anderson. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of 9-8B-7 detached accessory dwelling unit. Are we on the residential [snorts] agriculture of the

9-8A-8 backwards in the packet? 9-88-8 with the recommendation [clears throat] that we talked about of moving R112 in with the R115 um category and also having a an exception that says if a lot is the same size as a as a larger category um that it can qualify for the same the same standards even if it's zoned differently. And then also to add a a add a uh I don't know what the word of the category whatever that says that that ADUs will be made will be constructed out of similar materials to the house. What do you say? Yeah. To similar how red you only get two in the way. Just similar materials.

Carry the same look and feel, same general look. There you go. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Adding that phrase I think helps. It just gets hard to determine that. That's all I'm saying. If you're getting into architectural stuff, you're just like, "Hey, the house is stuck and stone and tile roof." So rather than saying similar, what can we just say out of the same material? Same material as the home. Yeah. Not similar, same. I need more than that. Then all of a sudden somebody's got to be the architectural committee. Yeah. So same material as the home. Yeah. I like I have a second. Commissioner Davis seconds.

First by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mitchell. I, Commissioner Tupo. Hi, Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Item 40 is public hearing consideration to the city council amending the title 9-B 98 B-7 detached accessory dwelling unit. Can I make a suggestion after we open and close public comment, can we just adopt the same that we did for the one previously? Yes, I agree. It's everything's the same. Correct. Identical. The goal is okay. Adopt [clears throat] the same motion.

Open it up, close it, and adopt the same. [clears throat] Elden, you don't need to go over it again, right? No. Okay. All right. So, we'll open up a public hearing on this one. It's exactly the same. We don't have to say everything again, though. All right. We'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to approve to recommend approval of 9-8B-7 detached accessory dwelling unit for single family residential with the exact same additional conditions as previous. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I second.

I have a first and second individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Hi. Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Mitchell. I Commissioner Tupole. I Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Item five is adjournment. This Commissioner Mitchell, I move that we adjourn. Second. I have a first and a second. [clears throat] All in favor? I. Meeting is adjourned. We'll give it a second.

and use authority for [snorts] Wednesday, January 7th, 2026. We will start with the approval of the agenda. If I can get a motion for the approval of the agenda. Mr. Commission M. I move that we approve the agenda for January 7th land use authority meeting. Commissioner Davis seconds. I first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Davis. All in favor? I I approval of the minutes from the December 17th, 2025 meeting. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve the minutes from December 17th. Commissioner Mitchell, I second. Um, first by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor? I I uh

Anyone have any the declaration of abstensions or complexes? Anyone have tonight? No. Okay. Item four [snorts] is a [clears throat] preliminary plat for the preserve ofa phases five and six subdivision located approximately Washington Fields and Capistrono Avenue. I'm sure I said that wrong. And we'll turn this this is the one that was this is what we tabled. And we'll turn this over to Sebastian.

All right. Thank you. So, I'm not going to review the whole project, but essentially the last meeting that was tabled due to concerns regarding the narrowing of Trestle's lane towards the west sort of narrows down and um yeah, so this is for the phases five and six subdivision watching Fields Road. It was 61 lots covering an area of 8.26 acres of land PCD and the applicant is here to kind of answer your questions about that. Let's do it. Did we have our public hearing on this already last time? Yes. Okay. Just making sure. We don't have to do it again.

Randy Walker with Civil Science representing the applicant and I apologize commissioners. I was in route last meeting to this meeting. I had a family emergency and I thought this should be a no-brainer. My clients are going to kill me. So, I'm apologizing on their behalf as well, but appreciate Sebastian and staff holding it down. But I can answer that quick little thing. This exhibit is looks like a scan, so we've lost a lot of the background data on it, so it's kind of hard to see, but so Trestle's Lane where it narrows down at that dead end stub. We do that because a lot of it's at the fire department's um preference. This is a narrow drive. It's 30 ft wide. So there's no parking within these private drives, but as you can see, all the town home units, it have driveways, so you can't park in front of a driveway regardless. So, we post non-p parking signs. What you're not seeing is the south side will have driveways as well because there'll be units along it. But when we have these deadend stubs, there's no driveways in the future right there. It's single loaded. So, we narrow them down so people don't park there because there's no driveways to kind of keep the average person from blocking a driveway and parking. So Elden or who's ever controlling, if you could pan to the north, we can see that phase three. But see, we've lost the the image, but it's right. I'm going to walk away from the mic. Right here, we're doing the same thing right here. You just can't see it. So, this is just a bad scan. But this is common practice. So, that phase three I'm pointing to is approved, built. Well, it's almost built. Gilbert's chugging away out there. you guys at the final plat's been submitted to the city. So this is common practice in those private alleys that are single loaded dead end where a fire truck will not be accessing to neck it down to prevent further parking.

So on the other side of trestle lane is going to be driveways as well on the where it's 30t wide. Yes. Where it nets down in front of 512 to 516. No. You can actually you can actually see the on the other drawing you can see the step down on the one above that Brandy was pointing out. This is really hard. Yeah, these are bad images on um which page is that? It's actually the one just underneath the colored site plan where it has is it showing on the PCD overlay? Right. It'll be right [clears throat] that star

right on this one. Nope. The one you Yeah, that's covering it right there. On this one, you can see you're show different anyway. I can see it on Yeah, this is three of three. Actually, one of three. Yeah, this is just a bad scan. It doesn't look good. It's hard to see. But right where Elden has the cursor. Yeah, right where your cursor is. Oh, there you go. I don't know what's better. Zoom in closing closer. Okay. There you can see the dash line.

Yeah. [snorts] See, people have you aren't going to park in front of somebody's driveway in the road. So, when we don't have that situation going on, people tend to park there and the fire truck won't pull in there to fight a fire.

Yeah. It's actually It's literally like you take this and mirror it down. It'll be a side load again going south and then single family lots on these are beach names. Capistrano Rodondo the surf vibe um on going down the next phase over to the south.

Okay. So Brandy, just to be clear, you're going to mirror it then and because part of the questions we had was what's going on to the south. Yeah, I'm gonna walk over here on this side. Phase three portion as we move down. Visionaries flying out there. So in this situation, Brandy, did the cars park on across the street from apartments like 512, 513? Will you typically see cars parked along that even though it is shrunk down?

So all of Visionary's product that they're building are twocar garages. These are rear fronted. So with the doors, rear rear loaded garage with the door on the front. So if you if you zoom back in really close, the back. Sorry, I'm just looking at the back. There's [clears throat] you can see the there's a line light line through the unit.

Those are garages. So, every single unit has a twocar garage as well as a 20ft driveway. Visionary knows they're end user and even though code doesn't or overkill, we've got way more parking because theoretically every unit has four stalls, two in the garage and two in the driveway. And then as well as this is a multifamily project and so as this starts to progress out you'll see additional on street parking or designated parking that's not that's loaded on the street itself but not in the street. We can't park in the streets in this in the multif family portion due to the width.

I know there's a fire protection plan is included in the packet and the fire chief has this signing it. So these are no parking on the streets. Is that what is that what you just said? In the multif family portion across the way [laughter] are single family lots. So we're So those So we're in the multif family park right now. Correct. So these narrow lots are going to be no parking on the streets. Base six is single family. These are 50 foot Publix. You have two different actually have three different road sizes [clears throat] shown right here. So the main road coming in that accesses the development is a standard 50ft rightway which allows parking. There you go.

Right. But the 30 foot does not allow parking. That's what I was gotcha. Correct. No. Okay. Okay. I think that was the explanation we were looking for. Yeah. I just Yeah, those questions I had. So, thank you. Okay. Look for a motion. I'll make a motion for approval of the preliminary plat uh for the preserve ata phases five and six subdivision located approximately Washington Fields Road and Capistrono Avenue subject to findings and conditions in staff report and for I believe this goes [clears throat]

this is commission second first by commissioner Davis second by commissioner Mitchell individual voting commissioner Davis Commissioner Anderson Hi, Commissioner Mitchell. I, Commissioner Tupo. I, I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm in I as well. This is approved. Item five is adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. I second. I'm first and second. All in favor? I. Meeting is adjourned.