So the general plan is commercial, it's compliant with that.

So it's yeah.

Um there's no density that's been designated for this mixed use.

It's kind of that holdover mixed use, and then we added density back into mixed use residential density, and there was none allocated to this area.

So commercial probably does make the most sense for it.

And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

Okay.

Uh is the applicant present.

You know the drill.

I do, and thank you so much for uh just letting me get up here.

Uh Rick Magnus with AEWA Engineering.

We are the consulting engineer for this project.

Um 2010 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Um the traffic's awesome.

Um I do want to thank publicly staff.

We put it in for you.

Thank you, Sorry.

Thanks.

Um it lets me leave early from work.

Okay.

I want to thank staff publicly because they have helped out with this.

And um in conjunction with this zone change, you will afterwards see um, you know, a concept review and a and a site plan uh pending this um this decision this evening.

I am here to answer any questions and concur with staff recommendations for approval.

Good for the time being.

All right.

But you know, appropriate to ask what table what in the table of uses were you moving away from that you couldn't find in mixed use?

Um it's the ability to have a drive-through.

So yeah.

Um that's about all I can say right now.

Remember, I'm the guy that always says uh we don't know that a marketplace is coming.

This isn't a marketplace, but uh the use that will come um I think you'll like on this corner.

Thank you.

And we will undoubtedly have you out of that seat in a matter of minutes.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Does anyone from the public who like to speak to this item?

Now is the time.

All right.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I can make a notion motion.

Very good.

Item three point one, public hearing and recommendation of AWA engineering's request for the review of the Mad Maverick zone change located at 520 West Main Street.

Changing the zoning on point seven two acres from mixed use to commercial.

I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that the proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan designation of commercial.

Uh it's consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan.

Um, consistent with the compatibility of the proposed zone with the general planned uses of nearby and adjoining properties.

And please include all DRC comments.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That was way too easy on you, Rick.

We promise to make this more difficult next time.

Thank you.

And you'll see me again.

Okay, item three point two.

Public hearing and recommendation of Holden Rockwell's request for conditional use approval of the Skull Valley flag lot located at 208 East 200 South.

And this would make more sense if you could see it, but it's a rectangle.

And they want to subdivide it so that it's um the house is you know towards the front of it, and then it'll have a big portion behind it.

So the lot with the existing home will be 17,000 square feet.

And then the flag lot has the 20 feet of frontage, and then it goes back and it's 9,542 square feet.

Um so it meets and it's in the R2 zone, it meets the frontage requirements and lot size requirements.

The flag lot code does say that if the flag lot is less than 10,000 square feet, that there needs to be a five-foot buffer with shrubs and trees and a six-foot fence.

So that would be a requirement on this one because of the size.

And um that was the only real DRC comment related to the conditional use flag lot.

Um with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

All right.

Is the applicant present?

I don't know what I have anything to say, but my name is Holden Rockwell.

Um my brother and I own it through our Skull Valley LLC.

Actually, is our childhood home that we grew up in.

And so long time Lehigh Lehigh people ran into a few people I know.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If there's anyone from the public who like to speak to this item, now's the time.

The pregnant pause is filled.

Go ahead and close that.

Bring it back to the commission for deliberation.

Motion.

Mr.

Chair, I just think it's interesting on the document submitted the property history.

The only um history noted is from 1872 when it was a part of the original incorporated boundaries of Lehigh.

I think that's kind of a cool um just cool heritage and history of the property.

That's awesome.

I do appreciate that.

I appreciate you pointing it out.

And the home itself has one of the pioneer plaques on it.

Does it so yeah?

Very nice.

Well, it meets the requirements.

It's administrative.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, will you entertain a motion?

I will.

Um motion to approve the with conditions, the proposed flag lot on item 3.2 public hearing consideration for Holden Rockwell's request for conditional use approval of the school valley flag lot located at 208 east, 200 south.

Motion to approve um with showing that the proposed flag lot does meet the intent of the flag lot code requirements.

And that um they're gonna they're gonna have to meet the five foot.

So including that with if they meet that five foot change, then they'll be within the code.

Um we could all DRC comments.

Very good.

Okay.

Second stance.

Motion is second, all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Congratulations.

All right.

Uh items 3.4 and 3.5 have been withdrawn.

Yeah, but 3.3 first.

I'm just I'm just on such a roll here.

Item 3.3.

Counting's hard.

This is why I do history.

That's right.

Just dates, right?

Item 3.3, public hearing and recommendation of Fox Brother properties request for review of an amendment to the grants corner development agreement allowing automotive accessories, installation, and service.

So the original development agreement was approved last year, and it allowed for office warehouse in mixed use.

Um, and it didn't really specify any uses beyond just the office warehouse was allowed.

And so a business wants to come in that does window tinting, and it just doesn't fit in office warehouse.

It um would fall under our auto service and repair.

Um, they initially had wanted to add auto service and repair, but staff recommended the automotive accessories installation and service because it's a little bit more narrow, doesn't include more of those intense um auto repair uses, and the applicant was um amiable wanted was willing to do that.

So yeah, that was uh the only comment from DRC as well.

So with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

All right.

Is the applicant present?

Go ahead and state your name and Samuel John Stemman.

Actually, the potential tenant, not the representative of the Fox Brothers.

Okay.

Just to clarify.

That is all right.

And uh anything more you think we need to know than what we've got in front of us or um yeah, just just that I think specifying uh accessory installation kind of uh eliminates any any negative uh implications from the auto service.

So no rust buckets rotting away in parking lots.

We don't deal in any kind of hazardous chemicals or anything like that.

Okay.

Very good.

Well we will harass you as needed.

If I have a question if I may have perfect, we're gonna start right now.

What are your hours of operation typically?

Uh it will be sorry.

About uh eight to five.

And I noticed that you said that they're gonna let you have the use of six parking stalls.

Correct.

Part of I think this original agreement was something to leave those parking available for rodeo, right?

And I know with some auto servicing type things, cars are parked overnight.

Are you planning on having those parked overnight at all?

Never.

Yeah.

So so in the lease agreement um with the landlord, I do agree to not be in the parking lot at all uh during the rodeo days.

And um the cars will always be in the warehouse area, um, not parked outside.

Those are used for employees and typically during business hours.

Yeah, and and just for the customer to to park, come in, do business as soon as we get the keys, we'll drive it around back and put it in the warehouse area.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay.

Is that an official motion?

Yeah, we're gonna need here's name.

Get him on the record for that.

Um perfect.

You can take a seat for the time being.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Does anyone from the public who likes to speak to this item?

Now is the time.

Seeing none, I'll bring that back to the commission for deliberation motion.

I have a question for staff if I could, Mr.

Yes, please.

Brittany, is this wording and automotive accessories installation service narrow enough?

I mean, I worry about unintended consequences of opening up the development agreement for something.

Could we be even more specific relative to automobile window tinting the whatever the services that he's doing?

Yeah, if you want to put that in your motion, definitely could.

And I'm guessing you would probably be okay with that.

But um, yeah, and I guess the hard thing is I don't think it was defined further.

It was just put in.

So you're right.

Do we have a definition in code for this particular type of no, because it's not a use that we have in our code, it's would be a new use.

So I mean pontoons on a car to make it a boat car could be an accessory installation.

That's a very different use of this property, right?

And so I don't think this is very well defined, and we probably need to narrow it, in my opinion.

Even including in the definition maybe some things.

I don't know if there are other auto installation and service type uses you can think of that you would be okay with.

Like if someone did uh wrap, like wrapped car.

I don't know how intensive use that is.

I well, but we're talking about one applicant force tonight.

I don't want to try to think of all the potential uses.

I want to think of what he's asking for and keep it narrowed to that.

Yeah.

And and I think that's fine if you want to include that in your motion.

Yeah.

Real quick.

Samuel.

Am I right to assume Sarah's your wife?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm so sorry.

Craig, let me just check here.

Uh his wife is uh colleague uh of sorts.

Do I need to accuse myself?

I want to at least just put it on the record.

Are you a joint venture?

She works at UV tinting.

Okay.

Does she work for you?

Yeah.

How many employees are there at UV?

Thousand faculty, and I don't even know what staff is.

No.

You don't work for it.

No.

No way, shape, and form.

Yeah.

We we know each other across campus.

We did a podcast episode once for the uh center of constitutional studies together.

That is sum total.

Just want to be utterly transparent.

You're not making any way, shape, and form.

No.

Okay.

Very good.

That's all.

Sorry, Samuel.

I'm just making sure I dot all eyes and cross all things.

I have a question for the application.

Oh, please.

The semi-applicant.

With the like we've been discussing here, potentially narrowing the verbiage to limit certain future impacts that would be more news, uh, more of a nuisance or a problem in this area.

Are you comfortable with the specimens?

Uh yes.

So the initial services we provide uh window tinting, paint protection, film, ceramic um paint protection, as well as vinyl wraps.

Um this is a franchise, and the the corporate office does some or other franchisees do sometimes do uh stereo enhancements or that kind of thing.

Uh so I would like to leave that open uh if possible.

Um but initially I wouldn't um that would that would be down the road a year or two and um I just looked up what the internet says, which go on.

Did you chat GPT or Google?

AI internet or real person.

So if our code doesn't define something, we usually just go to the internet like the most basic definition kind of thing.

And for an automotive accessory installer, it says installs repairs and customizes aftermarket accessories on vehicles such as audio systems, lighting, alarms, remote starters, and custom wheels.

So the definition is more narrow.

It'd probably just be a car having aftermarket things installed on it.

So it it is pretty narrow already.

And maybe we should just add that specific definition.

I don't know if you'd be okay with all of those things.

Yeah.

You could have a new engine.

I don't think we'd say that's an accessory, but yeah.

A second engine.

Anyway, okay.

Thank you.

I found this good enough to what uh a question for staff.

Please.

Um is this development agreement specific to the tenant or to the parcel?

So it is to the parcel.

It's the existing one that allowed the office warehouse there to start with.

And this is just amending it to allow this additional use, because right now all it says is office warehouse.

And there's a f there's several units in the building, right?

So that this would potentially open up for like a competitor of sorts to also come and have the same ability.

Yeah.

Yep.

Please.

I'll just say we're yeah, yeah.

Get get comfy.

Um I will say that the lease agreement with the Fox Brothers does stipulate um exclusivity.

Um and that no adjacent uh services uh can be tenants in that property.

Uh what if the condition simply uh it were to stipulate that it needs to adhere to the lease as is currently stated, which would also preemptively uh you know take care of uh any potential changes to the lease that would expand.

Mike, are you saying if his lease expires, then this comes out of the development agreement?

Uh what I'm saying is that the terms that are currently in the lease that that is the cap itself.

Well, in terms in terms of how they're defining what what the the functions, what he can do.

So Chair, we don't we're not privy to those terms.

Fair enough.

I mean I like the way you're thinking that it would be tied to the agreement that he has.

And I think it's his advantage that he has that exclusivity clause in there because why would you want uh someone else corner of the building to you?

So anyway.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, uh this is getting across the finish line.

It's a matter of making sure that we're not kicking open unintentional doors.

Just so that you know, in case you're sweating bullets, wonder if you can be able to provide for your family and whatnot.

Uh that's that's what's really going on here.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

All right.

Well, hot hot potato it, take a seat for a second.

I'm sure we'll bug you again momentarily.

Um Mr.

Chair, if I may, just another question for staff.

So this um is only in regards to this development agreement.

We're not adding this use to mixed use in general across the city.

It's specific to the development agreement on this parcel.

Okay.

Just want to make sure we're clear.

Yeah.

She's on here, remember this point.

Have we not done a public hearing yet?

I don't think so, because you're asking about being recused.

Yeah, that's right.

My apologies.

I'm sorry I'm so thorough.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If there's anyone from the public who like to speak to this item, now is the time.

Not a very chatty public this evening.

We'll go ahead and close the public commentary, bring it back to the commission for further deliberation or motion.

Uh my thoughts.

I think we need to I think we need to narrow it just to keep the unintended consequences from happening.

And I mean I wrote down four things.

Okay.

But then as a franchisee, I guess that could change.

That means he comes back here.

So I don't know how to leave it with some flexibility, but I certainly recognize the four things that he mentioned, and I think I'm fine with that.

Okay.

But I don't really like that we default to the internet definition for something undefined in our code.

That seems a little risky.

Well, that's the great thing about Wikipedia is it doesn't change.

AI.

Sure.

At the time.

So they change over time.

Well, I sometimes you use the urban dictionary.

Yeah, we hear you.

That's that one.

Hey, you said whatever's in bogue.

I'm just lawyering, Craig.

Oh, ris.

That's okay.

Oh gosh.

They do have a if they do want to use a different definition, that is something that hearing master.

Sure.

They do have a right to appeal.

A hearing master.

A hearing master, yeah.

I would.

Let's hear it.

Uh I move that for item 3.3 public hearing recommendation of Fox Brother properties request for review of an amendment to the grants corner development agreement allowing automotive accessories installation and service.

That we provide a positive recommendation to the city council with the recommendation that it be narrowed in the terminology into the development agreement to keep it limited to window tinting, paint protection film, vinyl wraps, and in the future stereo enhancements.

Include all the DRC comments with the finding that uh this is kind of uh a niche service that we haven't contemplated in our code, and it sounds like um this allow a small business to operate in a space other than perhaps at home, which this is probably a better space.

And um it it it is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

But let me ask one question of staff here.

If it it makes sense, if there's need, can Samuel come back and have that expanded later on.

Yeah, you can admit the development agreement as we say.

And that suffices for now.

Um did you include uh ceramic coating?

I did not, but I will add that ceramic coating as one of the uses.

Why don't we I just to make sure, forgive me?

Let's read off all that again.

Window tinting, paint protection, film, vinyl wrap, stereo enhancements, and ceramic coating.

Is that just an overpaint protection kind of a thing?

Yeah.

And ceramic coating that doesn't use chemicals.

I mean it's not a hazardous chemical, which was my my statement.

Okay.

Um let's see.

We had parking sensors and cameras to that.

Now we're getting broader.

Okay.

It's just a recommendation to council decide.

Okay.

I I I don't see any issue with cameras.

I don't I don't either.

I parking.

I mean what you're trying to avoid, right?

Like you're saying like a pond is narrow.

Yeah.

But it's already getting broader as we talk.

So what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

But these aren't these aren't broader, like you're gonna have massive I'm putting a camera in that that it's not gonna materially change.

Okay.

That's all right.

What what uses are you are you nervous about?

That's the same thing.

No, I I don't think I can contemplate what their other uses might be.

I'm not an expert in automotive service accessories.

But he's asking for a change to a certain type of use that's undefined, so I'm trying to define it.

So I think it's easier to find what it is used for than to think of the universe of things that it could be used for.

So that's what I'm trying to do.

And City Council can certainly broaden it.

I mean, I'm just I'm a recommending I'm a member of the recommending body that goes to city council for this.

All right, without saying I'll cycle if we haven't seconded.

We haven't.

Okay.

Yeah.

I can't see any DRC comments, but I think there was one.

The one but it's already been taken care of.

To go from auto service and repair to this auto accessories.

DRC included.

I think I did include those.

Motion and a second, all is in favor.

There you go.

Yes.

Our pleasure.

And apologize to your wife.

So if you want to go talk to the council about your uses, you have the right to do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have one more question.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um maybe I'm pushing my luck here.

But I I am wondering if it's possible to move this up to the 9-9 city council meeting.

That would be a question over here.

Oh yeah.

Sorry.

Gotcha.

Well, it's just side bar with Brittany here or my extra.

Or the mayor can do it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think probably can, but we'll just have to check.

I mean, a big part is minutes getting minutes in time.

That's the main thing.

Okay.

You're not pushing like to ask.

City can say no, but you're a citizen.

You have rights, you know.

This is asking fine.

Is that the good?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Now, back to my stellar counting.

3.4 and 3.5 are withdrawn.

Jumping on down to 3.6.

3.6.

Public hearing and recommendation of Bob Purdue's request for review of the water's edge general plan amendment on approximately 13.02 acres located at approximately 1300 east, 175 south.

Changing the land use designation from commercial to mixed use.

And that's incorrect.

It's actually currently transit-oriented development TOD.

The zoning is commercial, but the general plan is TOD.

So this is the parcel that's next to Walmart in that area that has wetlands and stuff.

And the applicant wants to aid in their narrative.

They want to do a mix of residential, hotel, commercial.

And that expired in 2018, so that holds no weight.

Just in general, that kind of mix of things.

And this property isn't where we'd want a transit station.

So it couldn't meet that qualification in rezoned TOD.

So I don't and the applicant can respond to this.

I don't think there's concerns about meeting the TOD standards as much as the only way to get residential on this property right now is to try and change the general plan to mix use or change the resolutions that are in place.

How many units kind of a basic layout?

And so that would be approved before they could build anything.

But at this point, um they're just asking for the possibility of having residential and commercial on this property.

And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

Yeah, question.

Brittany, did I hear you correctly saying that the city doesn't want a TOD station here now?

No, it's just not on this property.

So it's not where it's nearby, right?

It was across the street to the north, wasn't it?

Yeah.

So it still is there.

That's within the half mile of the TOD definition, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

That's why it's designated the same.

And there's a certain percentage of commercial that needs to be part of a TOD development, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

And um I guess if we change that tonight, then we don't lose we lose that ability to require a certain percentage of commercial.

It can't.

It could conceivably under mixed use become all residential.

Yeah, the land use does have more flexibility with that for mixed use, yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh is the applicant present.

Stage name and fireways.

Bob Purdue, I'm representing Aby Maciano, the owner of the property, Daniel Um George properties.

Um as you said, we've we're applying for uh a uh general plan amendment to changes oning this property to mix from commercial to mixed use.

Um if you look at the property, uh it's surrounded there is no frontage on main thoroughfare of the property.

Um it is surrounded by commercial, Walmart to the to the um American Fork side, uh to the north, Woodbury, um uh restaurants, commercial, retail, um, and then uh office buildings behind the property to the east and apartments to the east of the property.

Um vacant land uh freeway to the south.

Uh so it makes a lot more sense for development for to have a mixed use.

Uh we have a number of different plans uh on the property that we've been working with.

Nothing has been submitted yet.

Um it's a mixed use of uh uh hospitality, uh for sale uh townhomes, multifamily apartments, uh with some commercial retail uh just backing up to the uh Woodbury property to the north.

Um so yes, that's that's kind of where we are right now.

Um we would like to see this property developed.

Uh I think it's I was there a couple weeks ago, uh noticed some homeless camps uh in the property, two or three, three, four homeless camps in the area, a lot of dumping going on.

This property is has changed hands quite a bit.

There's been quite a bit of problems with the ownership.

Uh it's finally in the in the hands of uh Mr.

Maciano who wants to see it developed or sold to a serious developer.

Um you speak a little bit more to that change of hands.

I'm just asking if you happen to know where this fell through.

Uh I'm I find it interesting that there was a concept plan that didn't happen.

Can you shed any greater light?

If you can't sure it's it's not a you know no, I can share quite a bit of light as a matter of fact.

Uh Nelson Partners owned this property for a number of years.

And uh they had uh Pat Nelson uh went through a lot of different renditions on it, uh a lot of different uh design issues.

Uh Mr.

Nelson has had, without going into a lot of detail, uh he has had serious significant financial issues.

Uh this property um was uh in foreclosure for a number of years and bankruptcy and through Mr.

uh uh Mr.

Nelson trying to hold on to the property.

Um the property was purchased at sale by Mr.

Maciano.

And when was that?

That was about a year ago.

Mr.

Chairman asked a question of the applicant.

Please.

Um what percentage of this parcel is is buildable?

About nine and a half acres.

We've just finished our our water edge uh engineering study.

Uh nine about about nine and a half uh acres are buildable.

Um the uh it currently that report is off to the Army Corps of Engineers for certification.

And access is it only going to be coming in from 1350 East, or will there be access coming from the meadows development there to the east?

Well, there's there's right now there's two access.

Yeah, the one the one fee access going after 1350, and then the other access through a uh permanent easement through the Woodbury property.

We're also working on right now, and I don't want to make this conditional, I'm just kind of letting you know what's in the works.

Um we are uh currently working on a third and a fourth access uh this property uh across the across the wetlands into the Walmart, the northern end of the Walmart parking lot that would directly access.

Uh obviously that uh requires the approval of uh Walmart, American Fork and Woodbury.

Uh and we are working with Woodbury to make that happen.

Uh Woodbury is uh currently negotiating with American Fork to put an additional traffic traffic circle in front of Walmart, which will make traffic flow easier, easier.

Um the uh other access would be through the roller mills apartments to the east uh through a permanent access, uh permanent easement, um which would not really serve as in the is as a as a uh qualified uh access ingress and egress to the property.

Uh but it would give more flow of the property um and um so but there's a lot of approvals in in the process.

We've had our truff traffic study done uh by a traffic engineer, and um he has recommendations, no mitigation based upon that access.

It will it will basically connect our fee access, uh it will connect 1350 straight across our property snaking through and connecting in front of Walmart to the north end of the Walmart parking lot.

I remember last time this came through the concept showed a pedestrian access, the non-assiliar access.

It'll be both pedestrian and that would be an upgrade.

It'll be a pedestrian pedestrian and traffic.

Both.

It'll have to be a bridge because it bridges it goes across the wetlands.

So I hope we can do it.

Um we we met with American Fork um to begin with.

We our original concept was was straight through the property, uh connecting uh our act our fee access straight across the property to in front of Walmart.

We took that, we met, we met with uh American Fork and they rejected it outright.

They just said no, uh I'm not gonna do that.

Um so we have another plan where it actually snakes through the property uh and connects with the northern end of the the Walmart property to the north.

So we haven't and we haven't proposed that yet to American Fork, but they are obviously crucial in that in that access route.

Walmart's on board, Woodbury's on board, uh, but American Fork is being a little bit uh stubborn.

Okay.

Anything else for Bob?

It was Bob, right?

Yes, Bob.

Yeah.

Sure.

I'm not up.

What's that?

I said maybe.

Not yet.

Yeah.

You've seen the drill.

Take a seat.

Well undoubtedly.

Thank you, Roger.

No, thank you.

Uh all right.

This is a public hearing.

Does anyone from the public like to speak to this item?

Now is the time.

No.

All right.

All right.

You came for the show.

Want to participate?

Okay.

Go ahead and close the public.

I like to try and just shame citizens into speaking, you know.

It's it's fun.

We'll go.

All right.

All right.

We'll go.

It's an exciting show, I understand.

We'll go ahead and close the public uh commentary, bring it back to the commission for deliberation.

I have a question for staff, if I may.

Please.

In terms of numbers of uh in mixed use, is there a limitation of number of of uh uh homes or rentals or anything like that?

I know we probably have a limitation based on the master plan of service that we could provide.

Um I'm just trying to figure out a TOD versus mixed use, yeah.

Yeah, just what would we buy?

What are we giving?

Yeah, so yeah, the main difference is so that map that has the maximum number of units is for mixed use and TOD.

So that wouldn't change, it'd be 330 um ERUs.

And then utility capacity would limit a lot of other things because that was kind of the maximum per utility.

So doing like a hotel and 330 residential units probably wouldn't work with utilities, but uh until they submit something in engineering really reviews that we won't know.

Um TOD doesn't have the um it's not listed in the table of uses, right?

So it doesn't have specific uses as they propose things that gets approved through the land use plan.

Mixed use does have uses that are allowed in that, so it does make things a little bit different if it's an allowed use, it would have to be allowed.

But we also do require the land use plan for mixed use.

So we would have some review of what type of uses are proposed.

Um and then design standards would be in place, but there are some standards in TOD, like larger, more prioritized pedestrian walkways and stuff that um aren't as are aren't required in mixed use um unless it's through something else like a master plan trail or um some other way.

So yeah, does that kind of answer your question?

Yeah, when you said it was 330, uh whether that was mixed use or TOD.

And we have not yet developed a TOD if I remember correctly in the city, right?

We have.

So the one right next to it, the Lehigh Tech apartments are TOD.

That's the Mark Hampton one, right?

That came in.

That was the first one.

Yeah, okay.

And then we also have the sanctuary apartments are also TODS.

That's in the TOD area, yeah.

Exactly.

Are you are you good?

Yeah.

Um so the question that I have when I'm looking at the general plan versus the zoning, is um we've taken out the apartments for the commercial.

Um, and then we've got the TOD layered on top.

Um I totally get it because you've got a grocer right there, and like I'm assuming that's why in 2022 we had this be a TOD because there was all those components.

Why are we okay to walk away from that now?

So it it is still, yeah.

So that's a great point.

Maybe you know, we don't want to let go of that.

Um it it is still within the half mile from the future transit stop, so that's why it's still designated TOD.

And it really was just city council making those resolutions of we don't want to rezone anything, but they didn't get rid of the general plan designation for TOD.

So I think they're also not saying we're abandoning TOD.

Um it's more just we don't want to build all the density before we have any plan for transit.

I think is the reasoning behind that.

But mixed use well, I guess they they've got the 300 plus unit, so it really doesn't matter.

Like it's gonna the units are there, whether the transit's there or not.

Comes in or not.

Whether they get this or not, they still get the 325.

Well, not I mean, so that's like the maximum that could be allowed, but they can't build it right now because they're just owned commercial.

So they do have to have either this general plan approved or the resolutions changed or something to go to TOD or wait until you know they transit is planned.

Um yeah.

I think part of the resolutions as well is to try and push UTA to give some commitments to us that we're putting TOD where we know transit's gonna be, because it's been a little bit kind of undefined.

We just want to say, hey, look, we'll put it in there, but we want to know where the stations are gonna be for certain.

So I don't think we've seen anything else saying that stations can be anywhere else, but we just want basically some commitments from UTA.

Is that station firm that's planned there?

I think I thought it was kind of coming off and it's not gonna be a BRT if it is even going in.

Yeah, the mode, well, the mode changed on the point of the mountain one after the fact that um here, the station location is still the same on the central corridor transit study.

So that station location hasn't changed yet.

I'm just saying I think the council at the time of those resolutions just wanted to make sure there was some commitment and it's up to them to decide whether that threshold's been met or not.

They could repeal the resolution if they wanted to.

So that's really their call on that.

As far as our land use planning goes, we want the TV around these.

I think what I'm processing and just talking out loud about is if we've put on this halt for TODs, and then we just allow those who have the TOD designation to opt out by going mixed use, there is no halt, right?

We're just like it's essentially ineffective, and we're losing the opportunity of the TODs that we were all intentionally trying to plan for for our children and grandchildren 30 years from now when we've got a million people in Utah County.

So what I am not opposed to your like to you developing your land, but I'm more so concerned about the process in which this is happening.

Are we just going around a resolution that the council wanted these to not happen yet, right?

Like it just seems and I guess that's yeah, kind of for you to determine, right?

We can't not allow anyone to apply for general plan of the city.

Oh, no, of course.

Totally.

I mean it just I I like the plant.

My concern is um I mean we talked about this chicken and egg stuff, and uh UTA doesn't come through, and we um you know, they're kind of like the parents that tell their kids we're going to the park.

They never take them to the park.

Um it's to the point that I get very weary about uh you know grabbing the ball and sitting there and waiting.

And because of course in this scenario to take it out of the light childhood it uh we're talking huge development, it has a big impact on the city.

And if UTA is ultimately just gonna sit on its hands and do jack crap, I think that's the technical term.

I want to put that on the record there, Kate.

You know, uh I mean it's it's a fine development.

I have zero zero qualms on it, but we're gonna be uh, you know up uh up the creek that's kind of on the not nine and a half developable acres without a paddle if UTA leaves us high and dry on the other nine and a half acres.

I think I've mixed enough metaphors and played around with uh I had fun with it.

I I will assure you that.

So that that is the thing that is sitting on my mind.

You may indeed I was just gonna say, you know, the resolution, and again, this is all up to the council what happens with that, but it's kind of putting but we're gonna make our our adult decision here.

We're gonna put our big girl in big boy pants on and make a make a call.

But go ahead, Mike.

I was just gonna say that was uh kind of a blanket blanket resolution across all of TODs, but every TOD is a little bit different, so that's something to think about.

There is 15 minute bus service here today, so it actually is transit, frequent transit.

Um whereas a lot of the other ones aren't adjacent to this bus line, so that's maybe one consideration to think about down here.

Is it possible for the applicant to pursue an exception to the um resolution instead of doing it this way?

I guess you could include that in your motion would probably be the best way to say we you know recommend that city council instead look at keeping it TOD but amending the resolution or creating a new resolution because council definitely could determine to do that instead.

You know, they could say we're not gonna approve the general plan amendment, but we'll allow you to rezone to TOD.

So in a way, my thoughts are I I I I'm still I still struggle with TODs designated.

And part of it has to do with the timing uh and the use that usually the TOD and the use of the transit piece is only specific to those that live there.

It's not a citywide amenity, which is I can I think kind of a tragedy.

Um other than it takes cars off the road, which then we all benefit from, right.

Um I in a way I can see this kind of serving as a quasi-to-d under that mixed use because of the bus line that is there.

And yet is it something that we need to remain holding as a TOD for kind of keeping UTA commitments?

Or am I willing to say all right, I know there's gonna be some density coming in here, but will we also get the other amenities like the the retail and the restaurants and things like that, which so far I don't know that we've gotten a lot of that with the TODs that we put in.

Right?

I think we've modified in some areas uh allowing less retail.

And so I I'm torn on this one.

I'm I'm going back and forth.

Uh I want to preserve the city's ability to get what we need in terms of transit for the future.

But I also feel that there's a there's some benefit to dip developing this sooner rather than later for some of the reasons that Mr.

Purdue mentioned, and that um I think ultimately we're gonna get the same kind of residential kind of product, although I I like the idea of a hotel here, right?

Maybe depending on the quality of the hotel.

Um Bob's gonna make sure it's quality.

Well, yeah.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

So that was for the benefit of the of the commission, not really for anybody else.

But that's what I'm I'm that's what I'm thinking.

It's uh I'm thinking in if in the resolution you specify it needs to be married or higher.

I I'm more so of like what are we doing?

There it is.

Now the other shoe dropped.

All right, there you go.

Well uh if we don't want to develop TODs, allow like granting changes to mixed use, which is the closest thing to a TOD really is just going around a resolution.

And if the council believes in that, they need to hold to that.

If they don't believe in that, they need to pass a change, right?

And um if it's it in the way of development, then they that's the call that they need to be making.

Um for me, it's more like what are our goals and what are we trying to accomplish.

And if we are really trying to preserve TODs, then we shouldn't be granting exceptions and changes to the general plan.

But if we're okay with it, and yeah.

Any other thoughts?

I'm probably just gonna express mostly what you already have, but maybe in different words, and I don't know if it hits any differently for any of us and helps us better process this and get to a freaking oh.

That's what I heard you say.

Okay, good.

Well, I feel I said it more eloquently, but that works on a meta level.

But um okay.

Wow, what what I'm this is still in place.

Uh I like this.

I like the project.

I want to be clear on that.

Nonetheless, this uh resolution is in place.

Um to me there is a little a little bit of a problem for us to be um I mean I I could come at this from something of a legalistic mind frame.

If uh you know not this is a it's not exactly the same thing as it is an ordinance.

I realize that, but I mean it's a resolution.

All it resolution is resolution.

Um it feels a little off to be a recommending body that is recommending I realize the council can make their decision.

But nonetheless, um what's the point to these resolutions if we just are dismissing them?

Again council will ultimately make the call.

I I guess my my sense is that while I I like this project, I don't know that that is our place to say um to basically supersede what the council w currently has on the books.

Even if you know if they don't want it there, they should they should rescind that.

Um are things spinning over there, the two of you.

Have we ever done that?

I don't think we've ever done that.

I I was just asking Commissioner Lockhart if we do a neutral uh, you know.

Yeah, they've got before I actually think that makes a lot of sense.

I really don't want to say no to this.

I'm also not interested in contradicting the resolution because I I think it's worth pointing out to the council, you've got this on the books.

So we're we're respecting what you vote what you've said previously.

Uh it's it's not our place to overturn it.

We like the project, but you're gonna have to you know if you want to halt development.

Exactly.

So you know legally dot the I's cross the T's, do it do it properly.

But that would also allow us allow us to not shoot down and let's bot move forward.

Well, either way it moves forward.

It does, but I also think it sends the right signal, it sends a I I know that most of the council listens to this, so that they've heard the deliberations.

Sure.

So e either way I think they're gonna act in what they feel in their capacity as the voting body.

But I I I'm I'm on the fence, right?

I I I can see the benefit of keeping it to.

I don't want to undermine our efforts to try to entice UTA to do what they said they're gonna do, and and I don't want to erode that.

But I also be less cynical about UTA.

I don't know how to not be though.

Well, um I deal with them in my other life too.

I know you know it's a challenge.

Uh-huh.

So um but I also think the there's some aspects of what's been talked about, although there's not any concept that we're looking at of the cross connections and everything that I think makes sense.

No, I love this uh a usable spot for something that's very TOD-like, but not TOD.

In fact, I would love to see even more of the retail commercial part of a TOD in the mixed use than the housing piece, personally, because I think it fits well with the character of this area, because we already have that TOD development just to the west of it with I don't think a lot of the amenities that we anticipated we would get with a TOD.

So I think with mixed use we could potentially see that go up.

But there's no guarantee, right?

So mixed use doesn't have the same standards as TOD.

Yeah, we have changed to TOD standards to have more than when that development went through.

So the biggest difference if I'm understanding is it's uh minimized the commercial stuff that we're using about.

So they wouldn't really be able to do more resid like I guess proportionally in theory they could do more residential with 330 units if they're doing any part, you know.

Like it there's the that it has an area that they probably want to fill with things instead of having just a few residential, but it's true.

Mixed use doesn't require well it it does it it does recommend so I guess there is maybe a little bit of teeth that you could require some commercial.

Um the land use plan is only required if there's residential.

So if you're just doing commercial, you don't have to do a land use plan.

Um the land use plan, it does you know say that there should be a mixture of uses.

The TOD does too.

The TOD also allows if you do a you know, if you can provide justification why commercial won't work, that you don't have to do the 30% commercial too.

So there's also the chance that it wouldn't go in because of that.

Um if they're just saying, you know, it's too far back from the roads and everything that it doesn't really work, they could potentially not do the commercial in TOD as well.

I think what I'm hearing us say is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we like that we like the concept and the development, but we don't appreciate the skirting around uh resolution that the council believed in.

Yeah.

And has not, if they don't want it, they have a mobile.

Then they should take it off the books.

Yeah.

Um because it's putting us in a position where I don't know how to make a motion that's in conformance with the goals of the city when there's a resolution.

And this is what they've articulated.

Yeah, when there's a resolution that counters that, right?

So that's kind of where I'm feeling somewhat stuck, because it it if we believe in the TOD and we want it, we should keep it.

But if they don't want it right now, and that's uh is in my hearing, is that the conflict that I'm hearing?

No, it it's that's what's posed between uh rock and a hard place.

Uh honestly, that's where I really do like the neutral motion.

So I feel like that respects what is on the books, which to me is a government body for crying out loud.

Um but also signals that we do like and improve, you know.

Morally, perhaps, if not able to feel we can do so in a technical sense, the uh the project.

And it really sounds like the project would happen in very similar fashion, so it's not so much and I think there's like not an increase of density.

There's not all these things, which is why I feel like we're just skirting around uh a resolution or like a a a law per se, right?

So it just um I mean Bob.

Um at least, and this is from my architect um Joe Joe Smith at Method Studios.

Um he has spoken, he is he is um uh very in uh connected with uh um city council, and he has gone back to them numerous times to get to um uh uh get a waiver of that moratorium on the the the um TOD.

Uh and under the TOD, the density of this property is much higher than it is in mixed use.

It is it is higher.

We the the the the um the site plans that he has done based on the TOD, we have higher density under the TOD than we do currently with the mixed use, or not currently, but with the mu mixed use zoning.

Uh we would prefer the TOD.

But we can't get any kind of feedback from UDOT or the City Council.

It's kind of like two school children, you know, arguing and fighting, and and you know, they're just they're just being brats.

You know, they won't they won't resolve it.

And um, you know, they're they're holding us up, and this property.

I mean, I have this I have property is an ISOR, and you know, Woodbury doesn't like the way it is because it sits right behind their property.

Rolling Mills doesn't like it because it brings homeless people into their next them.

Walmart doesn't like it.

So what's that?

Okay, there you go.

I think that's the not common from our spectators.

Now we know.

So we would prefer the TOD.

But we can't get any kind of sense from the from the city council as to or you dot when that moratorium is going to be gonna be removed.

Right.

So we're trying to move forward the best we can.

We're not trying to skirt anything.

No, and I I want to try to you know skirt around something.

We're trying to do the best job we can with what we have.

Yeah and we have gone we have had numerous conversations with city council, and there's just no movement at all.

And so um we're forced to do what we're doing uh to to move forward um with it.

Uh we would prefer the DO TOD.

We had we have multiple site plans under the TOD and we get it higher density, which makes the property more valuable.

But we can't do those under the current conditions.

So we're doing what we do what we can to move the property forward and and do something productive with the property and bring taxes to the city and and uh you know residents, a walking distance to all the commercial to Walmart and everything else.

Um and um so that's where we are.

We're stuck.

Yeah.

So okay.

But I uh uh I'm not gonna I don't need a debate with you, but I do have a comment, I guess, for the commission would be that I think that they want you stuck.

That's the point of their resolution.

Um which is why I don't as a commission to recommend them to do something that goes outside of their resolution, just that's where I feel like the conflict is.

They passed that resolution to keep the DOD or the TOD stuck.

I'm not defending the resolution.

I didn't pass it.

I'm not on council, but that is the intent.

Well, they still have that all uh that that opportunity.

Yeah.

And that is coming.

Um time being, Bob?

Nope.

All right, sir.

Thank you.

I'll throw something out there.

Can I?

Would you entertain a motion?

Oh, I'll entertain it.

I moved it for item 3.6, Bob Purdue's request for review.

What we did public hearing, yeah.

Right?

Yeah, we did, because they denied the colour.

Yeah, because then he spoke it up after the case.

People would not speak.

Yeah.

I moved it for item 3.6, public hearing recommendation of Bob Purdue's request for review of the Water's Edge general plan amendment on approximately three 13.02 acres located approximately 1300 east, 1755 south, changing land use designation from commercial to mixed use that we provide a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings that the proposed um amendment is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare Lehigh City.

The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the land uses and zoning of nearby and adjoining properties, and I include all the DRC comments.

Just to kick it off, man.

Oh, yeah.

I'm genuinely just keep things moving.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Gosh, yeah.

Uh all those opposed.

Nay.

Nay.

Okay.

Uh is it defaults to a negative recommendation?

It still goes to the council.

Yeah, I would I would prefer to send a neutral recommendation, though.

I'm against neutral recommendations.

I think we should give a recommendation either way.

Um I think some recommendations and no stop.

They're so neutral.

I I disagree.

I think when they're used infrequently, they can send a powerful signal.

Mr.

Chair, do we need a roll call vote on that?

Do we do we have to get everyone?

Okay.

I mean, does is that where it stands then?

Is that that that?

That we are negatively recommending your positive recommendations.

No, whatever.

We don't have to.

I I don't like that recommendation.

Um I couldn't vote for I also don't like the outcome.

No, France.

You know, I you know, I like it.

What about a positive recommendation because we like the ideas that have been discussed with the caveat that we say as a as a deep wire as I that the this copy needs to be not?

So just can I please take an action.

Yeah, can we?

We we we can and I want to I don't want to just take an action on the domino effect.

Rejected.

Yeah.

Wants to right yeah we're we can still until the chair closes all right I'm allowing it to continue.

The domino effect of this workaround.

Is every landowner in a TOD general planned area going to come and say we want to be mixed use now?

And where does our T OD go?

Does our does our TOD like we all of the paramel mixed use.

Yeah like and then all of a sudden we've got resolutions shutting everything down which I I mean I don't think it'll go that far I'd hope not but what are we doing?

Is is there an end date on the on the resolution?

I don't think there was just until there's a firm schedule like timeline for when transit will be there.

So it's been five years and nobody's a terrible resolution.

Couldn't I make a recommendation that you might want to consider you could do a negative recommendation with the recommendation to City Council that they look at changing the resolution.

Now that I could get behind yeah yeah really we're what we're saying is it's only a negative recommendation because of the resolution we think the concept is awesome.

That is a motion I would very much like to be clear that's it's we've heard of it we've heard of a concept which is in the minutes I mean I just think it's incredibly frustrating for the applicant frustrating for us it's frustrating and like I think from the council's perspective it's frustrating at UTA and you know everybody's frustrated like was described earlier.

No and it's an ISOR and it should be I I want it to be developed.

Yeah and Mr.

Chair if I may I I think we you captured this was my motion was to provide a path forward right because we're kind of all caught in limbo and I mean I could have made just the opposite motion maybe it would have carried but I'm I'm not I'm not tied to a positive or a negative recommendation.

I just we need to get it moving and I feel the frustration that we all feel that and this was a way when I heard less density with a mixed use I'm more behind that than a higher density with a tod that really I don't know doesn't really benefit and that was confusing to me because I thought we had heard multiple times the density would stay the same.

It's the same it is said the development though would probably use less of that density than that would be just them determining right because I went back and looked at the table and everything is the same we have nothing that would say it's limited in any way in our code um TOD versus mixed use.

So if you maybe that was a selling point to get us to go to mixed use and if so then I'll get the hook but but I like that idea and high and higher commercial that would serve us so it's already there as well as be amenities for other residents that could come in and use the restaurants or whatever.

So that that was the genesis behind my motion.

You didn't city council has something to work with yeah I mean if if I'm the only one who feels strongly enough that there should be another motion obviously then there there shouldn't we close the item and move on.

City Council one what's that?

You can use your one it's a sure but if no one's interested then obviously there's no point.

Yeah interest I'll try.

Okay thank you go for it.

Um item 3.6 public hearing recommendation of Bob Purdue's request for review of the water water's edge general plan amendment on approximately 13.02 acres located at approximately 1300 east 175 south changing the land use designation from commercial to mixed use I move that we negatively recommend this to city council with the recommendation that they strongly consider their resolution halting to development and um I and identify that this application is an example of how that resolution is going to undermine the concept of a TOD moving forward with or without UTA.

We'll stop at DRC comments.

I can add that to the motion.

Yeah.

But there is an issue with having a resolution that forces applicants to look at other designations that are inconsistent with the general plan and undermined the health and well-being in future longevity of a TOD for the city as a whole into the future.

Good luck.

I'll second the motion motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm still an A.

Okay.

There were no findings.

So I'm I'm opposed because there's no findings.

Well, you could have asked me.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I'm very sorry for how limbo-y this thing is.

Um you heard all the deliberation there.

And like your Metal Mart neighbor, we are rooting for you.

Um developed.

Yeah.

We all want to see it develop.

Uh anyhow.

Good luck with that activity.

Good luck with that connectivity.

We hope American Fork is open.

Well, yeah, then what we can do again now.

For sure.

Well, we're just recommending the real teeth come at City Council.

And all five of them are elected officials who can actively engage.

Planning commissioners can engage with you prior to items.

They can.

So I'd encourage you to go meet with all of them and express your frustration with their resolution.

And point out that the commission very much liked your I what you've presented, and it was at least you can speak in terms of the chair.

It was the resolution that that was the hangout.

Which they put in place.

And this process tonight is the public process as part of this, but it's not the end of the process.

Yeah, to make sure you're aware of that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So this is this is not a not at all.

This is step one.

Step two continues.

They will likely they will read at the very least if they're not gonna watch this.

The city council does uh suffer through our very long deliberations.

Yeah, they do.

They're good at that.

Yeah.

They're very thorough.

I like that.

So yeah, this is this is far far from the end of the road where they're gonna have this resolution very much in their in their uh face.

So we're we're rooting for you.

Even if it didn't feel like it from the way that motion went.

All right.

Yeah, please develop that.

All right, city business.

Tuesday and Thursday.

Thursday's the training, Tuesday's the work session on the downtown plan.

So keep it.

All right, what's the Thursday training?

Um dispute resolution.

Um that's right.

Okay.

Yeah.

So Danyan teaches a conflict resolution course at the U.

Really good.

I took it um when I was in grad school and it's phenomenal.

So if you can try and be here right at 5 30 to get started, um it's gonna be our September work session and our October and we do have like a limited number of uh uh seats with our agreement with her.

Are all be planning on being able to be there for the work session?

For Thursdays.

Yeah, for Thursdays.

Um I cannot be in attendance on Thursday.

And I was gonna send an email, but so Ken, Boy.

So yeah, this is September 2nd and September 4th.

Yes.

Yeah, we're gonna do that.

We're gonna have a question about the 530.

I'll be there Tuesday.

I just can't make Thursday.

Yeah, Tuesdays at five.

And how long is that one?

Does that go till when's formal council start at seven?

Well, this is their just work session too.

They don't have a regular hours, two hours.

The Tuesday one starts at 4.30.

No, no, it's five o'clock is what Kim's email said.

Let's see.

Oh, yeah.

The joint session starts at five.

You're right.

4.30 is the council starts.

So they try and be done by seven as well, I believe.

Okay.

In general.

So Tuesday, five o'clock.

Yep.

Yeah.

Here.

Thursday 5 30.

Yeah, crossing.

Will there be an email?

Yeah, we can go.

Strongly worded email.

Is that Kim sent an email?

I don't know if he put the location.

He did, he did Thursday.

Yeah.

Thursdays here, yep.

With limited C'est here.

It's not really limited, like Ken and Bo, you can both come.

It's just um we might invite other members of staff if they want to come.

Um, they're fit guys, they can make it happen.

That'll be all right.

I when I first read it, I was wondering if we made a misstep and we got into an argument about it.

Maybe.

Yeah, we argue sometimes, but I don't feel like we're pretty preliminary.

It's city council.

It's actually all my fault, but it's not their work session.

It's our work session.

Right, right.