It is seven, so we've right there.

Oh we will Emily's walking in right now.

Oh that's too Bo, you were great.

You were this close, man.

Yeah, I think you should come up here and sit anyway, just to do it.

Just right.

Just be all right.

There's for the approval of the minutes, and then you get to go sit down.

Right.

Yeah, you can make the minutes make it in the motion.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

No.

With the arrival of Commissioner Lockaro.

So don't worry about it.

It's okay.

Um Bill's in the mail for the 60 seconds.

Like to well, Mary Wentz-Lehigh Planning Commission September 11th.

Uh 2025.

So with that, we'll go ahead and call to order.

And move into the approval of minutes from August 14th.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed regular agenda it is.

Jacob 3.1.

Okay.

Item 3.1 is consideration of Clyde Capitals Group, Clyde Capital Group's request for approval revisions.

So the VISTAs at the point amenities.

Removing the amphitheater from their required amenities.

And this was tabled back in May.

Um review in May, they had just removed the amphitheater.

Um since then, they've changed the amphitheater to be a dog park instead of just having the removal.

Um they provided justification in the narrative, um, which probably the applicant will talk about a little bit more.

Um I'll let him talk about that.

Uh they also provided a conceptual layout of the overlook park as well as the the proposed dog park in more detail that was in the packet.

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

Questions for staff.

All right.

Uh is the applicant present.

Please state your name and add anything you'd care to say.

Yes, appreciate your time.

Uh thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you.

Yes, my name's Adam Osler.

I'm with Clyde Capital Group on behalf of uh Clyde Companies in Geneva.

Yes, I think um Jake did a great job of uh describing kind of what we've done since this has been tabled, really focusing on kind of the feedback we got was you know, okay, took that away.

Now what do you want to do with it?

So we spent time really digging into amenities that we think will be high highly utilized, especially given the space out near the um the point of the mountain.

So that's why we pointed to the dog park.

Got them on the southeast point of the parcel.

You can see there.

And then the overlook park overlooking, you know, kind of the hang glider and that that beautiful view out looking west on the northwest portion of this site.

So anyway, I'll pause there.

Happy to answer qu any questions or address any comments you guys have.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

Please.

What other amenities did you consider other than a dog park?

It's a very good question.

We spent time looking at things that you know other folks would you know highly utilize.

And so given that there are 404 homes here with the apartments and the townhomes.

We looked at things like um pickleball, obviously a big part of this already.

We looked at things like playgrounds and other things.

Um a lot of the other items, this this is I are they highly excuse me.

It's already a highly amenitized area with the trails and the um the other amenities here.

And so again, we spent time looking at other things, but the dog park and the uh overlook is what we landed on.

Okay, and um if I may, Mr.

Chair, um can you remind us why you're removing the amphitheater, what the thought process is behind that?

Yes, really so at Clyde Companies, I mean you guys probably know Clyde, we've been around for a hundred years, and we really pride ourselves on being a big part of the community.

And so in our real estate developments, we're not just here to do a quick flip.

We want to really make sure that um folks that are going that residents that are gonna use the spaces actually use the amenities um that are used there.

Given the seasonality of the site, given the uh less um given the less kind of uh it requires a lot of planning to use it to use an amphitheater, whereas a dog park and an overlook park are things that people can use kind of spontaneously.

And so that's why we believe again, given the residents are gonna be here, this is gonna be highly more utilized than uh amphitheater.

What is that green box?

Oh sorry, uh pickleball.

And a pump track.

Yep.

Where is that?

That is uh you were looking at um kind of the I guess yeah, it's directly the side's pointing north, so it's it's directly east.

I mean, so that box is roughly where that's our thing that's our park, right?

Correct.

Yeah, that's already in place.

Oh, okay.

They had other amenities approved as part of the original approval.

And that's roughly where it is.

Yeah.

In comparison to the site.

Mr.

Jeremy, I asked a question.

Please.

Adam, would you maybe address the value of uh the amphitheater cost uh and then versus what you're requesting in terms of a dog park?

The what what's the difference in what's being provided in terms of items for utilization?

I guess it's probably gonna be fenced, I would imagine, right?

And so dogs can be off leash and be like a water station for dogs or anything like that.

Yeah, if you want to go to that picture if you don't mind, thank you.

I think um yeah, this is definitely what we're imagining is yeah, kind of that center space will be we're calling it the off-leash play zone.

But yes, that'll all be fenced.

Uh again, that's where you know the primarily the dogs will be.

And then yes, kind of you can see on the outside of it, the double gated entry, the fence, yes, the straight shade structure, um, a couple of benches, you know, some tree and foliage out there as well.

Compared to the amphitheater in terms of cost install.

Yeah, we can we can share supplemental information.

Um this is really about the utilization of the uh of the amenity.

It's uh you know pretty similar in cost in terms of uh the dog park for and the overlook versus the um the um amphitheater.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What is the surface on the uh off-leash play zone?

Um actually don't have that offhand, but um we can follow us.

What's that?

It's not grass, though.

Oh sorry.

Uh it's um yeah, apologies.

I should have known that, but yeah, don't know that offhand, but um we can follow up with that.

Good question.

Most of these start with grass and then up with grass.

Um, unfortunately.

Mr.

Chair, may I in the report analysis it says that um you need to provide 14 picnic areas, two sports courts, six playgrounds slash dog parks, and a clubhouse at least 1500 square feet in size, tool pools, tennis court, and splash pads.

But what I'm seeing that you're proposing is one dog park compared to what you need to be.

So what are we missing something?

Yeah, so they this is just a revision to the amenities.

They had all they have all the time.

They have everything else.

Yeah, everything else.

Yeah, this is just the amphitheater.

So they've met all the requirements, they just want to remove the amphitheater, change it to an additional dog park.

So for three, you already have one, or this is the only one you'll have.

So in the dog park and a regular park?

It says they could be needed to have six playgrounds slash dog parks.

So what's the total?

Um yeah, we can we can follow up with that.

Yeah, this would be this is just based on the uh the change from the amphitheater to the dog park.

Right, and I I was just looking for the total amenities now with the change.

Yeah, apologies, don't know that offhand.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Well, Mr.

Osler.

You're welcome to perhaps text a colleague, maybe you can get some answers to some of those questions.

Uh you know, it's uh thankfully not a uh an exam, a closed book exam.

You know.

Perfect.

Um but also thank you for being straightforward on what you don't have.

That is frankly appreciated.

Of course.

Uh so on that note, I would appreciate if among your texts I would like to know just how similar those similar numbers are on cost.

Perfect.

Uh if there's anything else, we'll not for the moment.

Okay.

Well we'll be back with you in a bit.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um let's see here.

Consideration.

Oh, this one is so habit.

This one's not a public hearing, though.

No.

Right?

So it's just to us.

And then we will go ahead and continue to deliberate.

And uh, Mr.

Osler, when uh when you have some answers, we'll welcome you back up.

So perfect thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, may I ask a question of staff?

Please.

Um, so I know that we were wanting to have like a community gathering space.

Um, do we usually consider dog parks to be a community gathering space?

I was gonna say it depends on your community, right?

Dogs are gathering and humans are gathering, but uh I don't know if we have like a definition of gathering space per se in the code, but uh I'd say from anecdotal experience, yeah.

You know, you get people, you get the community that goes there, they walk over there, they talk.

It's a little bit different than an amphitheater, which is more of an event space, like was mentioned by the applicant.

I don't know if we would consider it different.

There's maybe just different community gathering types.

I don't know, I don't know if that answers the question for you really.

Well, and I I think the lookout that they're adding as well, that would you know you have seats and people can go up there and gather.

I like Jacob said, I don't think we formally say, you know, it has to have this many benches or a plaza of this size, it just says a gathering space.

Well, I'm trying to look up um it's probably been three or four years ago when they came in with their overall uh preliminary plat.

And if I'm just going off memory, but I think because of the nature, you know, they have some townhomes, they have the apartments.

If I'm remembering correct, and I'm trying to find it really quick here.

We should should have had this ready, but um I think when they got their original approval, they have a a gym, like a clubhouse area, and a lot of these like the view or um in bold, instead of having you know, X number of playgrounds where you have you know it's more for little kids, these probably will especially the apartments might be for y young single people or anyways.

So I think we substituted equal value, you know, or at least roughly proportionate some of the playgrounds for the nicer gym and some of those other things.

So I'll I'll see if I can find that.

But to answer your earlier question, you know, how many playgrounds?

I know they have some that are scattered throughout because there's the like I said, the apartments, and then there's also the townhomes.

And I think they have a couple of parker parks, but I'll I'll see if I can find it.

Maybe they can find it as well.

But yeah, tonight it was just the that um amphitheater, they feel like the lookout and the dog park are you know, that's what they're asking to substitute that one amenity.

So we can open back up, you know, we can look at what the other ones are, but that's the specific request tonight.

For clarity on that lookout, that's been talked about since the very beginning.

So I don't know that that's in substitute or adding that they've talked about that literally from the day one.

Yeah, I think it's enhanced, at least my that was my understanding.

They're adding a little bit more information.

Yeah, looking at that as well.

Good point.

I think it was gonna be better grass or how it's an outlook.

Um I thought it'd better be they changed the view, it's impressive.

Yeah, this has been a while since it went to DRC because it got tabled a couple times.

But I thought they had like some pergolas, yeah, some bench.

Yeah, it has so I think it has always been planned to be an area that somebody, you know, like the trail comes up along that far east side of the project, and then it'll connect to the um flight park road.

Um but my understanding is they're putting more cost or more value into that amenity.

So it's it was always in the plan, but I don't think it was quite this nice.

So that's my understanding.

I I guess their narrative it might want us to weigh in and evaluate why they didn't come with the dollar figures.

If they want us to really weigh it out.

That would be my concern of this whole process here.

Uh question is at the same time, this is a project as a whole, and I don't think it's beyond uh appropriateness for the commission to say, have you kept your word across the board?

Um to just be very frank.

Uh and to expect that we can have that information when we're asking for it.

It's a tabled item, it's been here before, it's coming back.

We all knew it was coming tonight.

I would expect to be able to get responses.

So that's where my mind is at.

I do have feedback as far as input of a dog park versus an amphitheater.

I do think that is a positive change.

I do think that is something that theoretically could get a little bit more usage.

Um although I think Commissioner Lockhart was getting to a public gathering space, and I also see that as well.

I I don't think those in my mind are apples to apples, but I think a dog park is a is a bonus amenity for especially a location that doesn't have a lot of yards, right?

These are people that would not have access to those things.

I do think it's a good idea that we zoom out a little bit and look at the surrounding parcels.

So just a few months ago, we were talking about uh believe it was a station area plan that would be developed just west, kind of southwest of here.

Um and there's opportunity for that amphitheater to be utilized in many ways if you kind of zoom out and look at the surrounding parcels of what we're planning and hoping developers do, and a community gathering space um is a benefit to the community.

Um so I'm just struggling to see how the dog park is equivalent in intent when this was originally approved, there was an intention for community gathering, not puppy gathering.

So I'm just trying to understand.

Um I'm afraid not, ma'am.

This this one I am sorry.

Uh this one's not uh not a public hearing, regretfully.

Um can you comment on?

And we're not supposed to typically haul her back and forth.

I'd love to be able to answer that a little bit better.

Yeah, um yeah, I guess she's welcome to come in next Monday or Friday, Jacob will be here.

Um, and we can answer questions of staff.

But yeah, tonight's meeting.

This item is is just for between the planning commission and the applicant.

Okay.

We did find, by the way, this is the original from 2021 was when the preliminary uh approval was granted by the planning commission, and this was the kind of the comparison of the amenities that the city required and then what they were providing, and and you've got the cost comparison right there.

So they definitely subbed out, you know, for the regional trail, the amphitheater and the apartment clubhouse, which is kind of that gym that I was talking about.

And this is I guess the package that was approved at that time.

So I don't know if they have an update.

I guess that's more what you're asking for.

Is show us what you know the amphitheater looks like it was originally proposed at a quarter of a million.

So does the dog park and the enhanced um lookout that that's what you're trying to find, right?

And if I can, Mr.

Chair.

So what I'm understanding is we've got the city standards that should have been there.

This on the right is what they gave us, and since they were essentially equivalent or just $10,000 more, we allowed them to not meet our standards and do this instead.

Now the standards in we can pull it up in chapter 37.

It says this is what the typical uh typical amenities that we would require, but it it says right in that chapter that the planning commission underneath the table.

It says amenities may be combined, upgraded amenities at and it's at your discretion.

Cool.

So it's not like they they were supposed to have the playgrounds and we allowed them to get away with less.

Yeah, this is this has been done on many other projects.

So we have that you have that discretion.

Um I think because of that discretion, uh, I think wanting to see the numbers of makes total sense, right?

Because if we end up approving a dog park that's worth 50 grand, that number completely changed to what our standards would have asked for, right?

And so I can see why there's a request for that.

Well, and I will say it's not like the goal here is to make the application because I don't think you're saying this by any means either anyway.

It's not like the goal is to make the applicant spend money, right?

But are seeking to ensure that if there's a change, it is at a minimum neutral, if not better for the community.

Now that happens to save the applicant money.

Great win-win.

But what I'm not interested in doing is shortcomingly high residence.

If that's in fact, you know what it appears to be.

So anything anything more at this point.

Um not to put you on the spot, but you happen to have uh further commentary.

We welcome you.

Return to the mic.

Appreciate that.

Thank you again.

Um to address some of the comments.

Yes, I mean the focus is really the adding the dog park and not necessarily we are enhancing the um the open space, but yes, this is really about the dog park.

Um as far as the question around kind of meeting the requirements.

Um we are meeting the requirements to the trails, amenities in the apartments that include a pool, clubhouse fitness center, etc.

and open spaces, not just for the apartments, but for for um all of the residents.

Um through that.

Can you go back to the other page that had that breakdown?

Um you're saying it j and not to cut you off, I just want to make sure I fully understand.

So you're saying the apartment clubhouse has a pool and a meeting space, like and that therefore that's how you've met the left side of of this, right?

Like you that's where you guys came to terms.

Yes, and some of it is um yeah, some of it's already addressed.

I mean, there's like yes, a piece of that's it's already been addressed on each side of this.

Yeah.

So the way I'm understanding it is like on the left side is kind of what our standards would have you provide.

Yes on the right side is what you're going to provide, and there was some kind of trade-off because they're obviously different.

Yes.

That trade-off was the amphitheater, which would be this community space.

You're now coming and saying, hey, we want to swap the amphitheater trade-off for a dog park.

Can we do that?

What we're wondering is, okay, well, we we walked away from the left side because you offered an amphitheater.

Are you doing is the dog park equivalent, right?

And are you doing enough for those residents that if you would just follow the standards, they'd get more.

Right.

So that's why I'm asking.

So you are providing like your parcel provides a pickleball court.

No, not our parcel.

Right.

Your and your parcel does not maintain or or do any of the trails, that's a city trail.

And yeah, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this is that piece of it has already all been approved.

That's really the yeah.

And then just to kind of build on that point, I mean, in terms of the cost of these, I mean, we're if you compare the amphitheater versus the dog park, we're budgeting two hundred grand for the dog park, versus two fifty for the amphitheater.

In addition, we're gonna spend over three million dollars on the clubhouse.

And so it's I mean, yeah, it's uh meaningful difference in terms of what we're investing into this this project and what's shown up here.

And that's because of uh yeah, the increased amenities and and such.

Maybe just sorry, really quick to clarify the regional trail delivery.

That is that east the trail that goes all the way along their east side that goes up the hill behind Winter Haven subdivision.

And that is a a big value.

That's on our master plan for trails, but they're building it.

They dedicated the right-of-way.

So that is that is why that's a big value on anyway.

That's why I'm asking.

Yeah, yeah, that's not like trails off site.

They did already grade build their yeah.

Yep, yep.

So it's that red yeah, trail on the way, those are the items I've been able to come up with, but any other questions or comments.

Thank you for the time.

Yep, thank you.

All right.

Well, the thoughts or emotion.

No, it does not.

Approval.

I think dog park is a great amenity for this.

All those armors that don't have yards that some of those people still have animals.

And this would be a very positive attracting amenity for individuals that do have animals that want to live in this area.

That's a great amenity.

Mr.

Chair, I actually have a question for the applicant.

Would that be okay?

Yeah.

There are some apartment complexes or HOAs that wouldn't allow tenants to have animals.

Will the C CNRs of this development allow for pets?

Yes.

That is a really good clarification.

Yep.

Okay.

Okay.

Not personally a dog person, and that is not a reason to make a decision.

I would love to hear more from the dog people.

Um and I I would be curious as I think about more.

I I appreciate the letter clarifying this will be good for canine and human visitors.

So that is that is that was great.

That was good.

Both species.

And I guess that that is one thing I am curious about.

The layout of the dog park.

I suppose Mr.

Osler, I am asking you a question.

Forget me.

Why don't you come back on up?

Um I uh certainly expect that a dog park is going to be built with dog owners in mind as it should be, if that is that's exactly what it is.

I is there any practical steps taken that might make it inviting to non pet owning types uh as they stroll about.

Um is this gonna have I'm not saying it should, I'm inquiring.

I think about some of the small parks I've encountered in my time in Europe where there it's not a playground, right?

We say park in the US, we picture swings and slides.

Yep.

Um will this uh I guess that's still kind of getting back to that gathering place component.

Or is it gonna really be a place that you know you're you're just not gonna enjoy if you don't have uh a small creature on a leaf.

Yeah, it's a very good question.

I think the way I'd ad the way I'd answer that is yes, it's it's thought and not just for owners, but also or you know, dog and dog owners, but also you know, residents that don't have pets.

And so part of that is you can see, I mean, obviously the fence is a big part of it, right?

Having an off-leash zone as opposed to just a dog park where everyone, you know, dogs are running freely is a big part of it, allowing people to enjoy that.

The second piece is the uh the trees kind of surrounding it, right?

It kind of provides a little bit of privacy kind of for dog owners and dogs as well as privacy for folks that not necessarily prioritize pets.

And then the last piece is the um kind of the benches around it.

The create, you know, kind of sitting spaces and uh and things like that.

Uh did you happen to get an answer on what the surface is gonna be there?

Grass.

Grass.

Yes.

All right.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that.

That's okay.

That's right.

For now.

Okay.

I have nothing else to bug you with.

Everyone else good.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um I think it is a different amenity.

Um not say that it is uh that I find it demonstrably worse.

So I would love any greater input.

I know that sounded super enthusiastic, right?

I worded that in the most like yeah, most exciting way possible.

Uh I'm just acknowledging that, you know, my greatest uh experience with dogs is my children watching paw patrol.

So you know, um the city has a same in real life.

Good, good to know.

Sorry.

The the city has a dog park at Willow Park that to be honest is the cheapest dog park that we could have built.

And it gets heavily utilized.

There are people there all the time.

There are families that go with their pets.

And that's in an area that you have to you have to go a distance to get to it.

There's not a lot of homes.

Real close.

I mean, there are.

There's homes built around it.

But I mean it's a distance to get to.

And again, it is a very cheaply built dirt mound, right?

That they just put a fence around.

And yes, there are a couple of amenities.

I don't want to say that they didn't.

They did kind of clean it up a little bit, but that is it's heavily utilized.

And I I imagine that this would get quite a bit of utility in this area.

Okay.

Especially with the proximity to that many units.

That is helpful.

Thank you.

Dogs riding their bikes on the trail to get here.

I am not a dog owner.

I'm not just trying to stump for dogs, right?

That's uh I'm not a dog owner.

No, but look, we we have to make we have to make decisions about we all live in the city and know it well, but we have to make decisions about places parts of the city we don't we don't live in, or are you we go to less aspects of life we we don't know as well.

So um no, that I find that information very helpful.

Where I'm struggling is an amphitheater was for everyone.

Dog parks are for people who own dogs.

And that that to me is kind of where I mean I guess if you don't have a dog, you can go there.

Um but you have no real purpose in going where the amphitheater was gonna bring everyone together and everyone would have a reason to be.

So that's the trade-off part that I'm struggling with is one was for all the residents, one is just for residents with pets.

And not cats.

No one would recommend it.

Right.

And not hamsters, yeah.

Um really thought the amphitheater was quite cool.

Um I do thinking about the housing and um I I can see how this could be of significant use to the type of uh resident that this or a type of resident that the area will attract.

I don't know what attract it could attract.

I don't know.

I think I might I mean not gonna say all of them, of course, but most certainly will in part.

Um my experience with housing would lead me to say that if you you've got a large uh you know high density area and the C C and Rs do not forbid and in fact you know prevent preventing animals.

Oh it's it's gonna draw for sure.

I do have another question for the AppleCon, I'm sorry.

Keep getting you up and down, may I?

Please get my steps on.

That's right.

Would the HOAs and things like that cover the maintenance for this?

Yes.

Okay, so this would be a HOA maintained or H way funded um maintenance program.

Let me verify one second.

Yes.

I thought so, but wanted to do that.

I assumed it would.

The only reason I bring that up is just in comparison to another dog park that I've already talked about, which again is not nice.

It's not it's but it is heavily utilized.

If there is a if there is a maintenance program and and it is maintained, it's a great amenity.

I really believe that.

If it is well maintained.

Even ones that aren't have been a great amenity for the city, but having one that is well maintained, I think will bring in people from other parts of the city as well to utilize it.

I agree.

Yeah, if you're a part of the company, yes, that's that's appropriate.

Yes, I am.

But do you please state your name?

My name is Michelle Rowe.

Also work for Clyde Capital Group.

So a big consideration in moving to a dog park was that the there was a wind study done by the hang gliding group, and that the location of the amphitheater had to move.

So it wouldn't have been nearly as attractive to the area where we had to move it.

And so considering the transit-oriented district, the density of the housing, the people that don't have a big place for their animals to run, that would we really tried to consider as a Clyde company.

We are highly invested in our communities and wanted to add value to these people and their lives, and they don't have a lot of room for their animals to run.

We already have a sports park, so those things are already covered.

This dog park definitely adds that value.

And like you said, we've we've looked at our design to make sure it has a wash station, a water station for the animals, not all of them do, and to make sure that there's good turf and there's shade so that these animals and their owners would have a good experience.

And to make sure that there's good turf and there's shade so that these animals and their owners would have a good experience.

That's really important to us.

Adam, why don't you say that from the get goes on the ground touch.

That's um I I find that very helpful information.

Thank you.

One other aspect if you don't mind me speaking to this is the location.

Please um the overlook park and the dog park park are both connected by the trails which we have also improved and built out and so if you think about the flow of where the residents are and the trails it really will add a really beautiful aesthetic to the area as well.

That's all I had to add.

Appreciate it.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you so much down in there.

Well come on show some cards here.

Thoughts make a motion it's a it's a tough call between the use of an amphitheater which may not get a lot of use other than as a as a sledding park maybe in the winter time.

I don't know what the design was going to be but if it couldn't go where it's supposed to go because of the wind study um that that changes the development potentially I think that's a significant crucial piece of information.

You know I agree with Commissioner Lockhart that you're narrowing the use of certain amenity by restricting it to as a dog park.

But I don't know how many dog owners there are that are gonna occupy those apartments and maybe that becomes a wonderful um as Commissioner Eyre has stated opportunity for a backyard for a pet that can live inside and enjoy a a romp in the in the park so to speak.

My guess is that yeah the the amphitheater would be used uh less but is more attractive to can be used for the whole can I that makes sense can I chime in here though of course this is a TOD and TODs are designed for commu to bring the community places um there's supposed to be somewhat of a um intent for all the like the community to gather right um I don't I don't fully understand how the dog park is meeting the requirements of a TOD I I'm not I'm not there.

I what else here it this to me doesn't it doesn't feel like a TOD anymore it's it's a high density development where's the TOD what what about this as a TOD if we make that a dog park?

The transit other than that though what is it just like where's the mixed use?

I don't even think this is mixed use we couldn't even call it that so how is it supposed to be a TOD I'm happy yeah it's what you got there there will be commercial this is just the residential components the on the other side of mountain point boulevard there will be opportunity for commercial and this over as you get closer to the station there's actually other land that they own it could have even more commercial so you see the footprint if you go back maybe go back to that one we can show them these footprints or some future commercial buildings that you see fronting towards mountain point these ones yep the ones next to the dog park.

Yeah so so there will be non-residential space included in this development is just this is what they're building first is the residential and then yeah down to the very bottom end of the map is opportunity for other commercial and the station is you know basically right in that corner so anyways is that so there is other land uses I I see your point right now it's apartments and town homes so and trails would you have anything further to add on terms of gathering point to uh commissioner lockhart's other critique yeah I guess it's really up to you as the commission you know where that note at the bottom of the table it just says here's our baseline you have the ability if you know that's that's your decision tonight is to weigh out if a dog park meets those amenity criteria well he was getting ready to make there was turned back that way I was uh sharing my thoughts.

If you know that's that's your decision tonight is to weigh out if a dog park meets those amenity criteria.

Okay.

Well, he was getting ready to make it.

There was turned back that way.

I was uh sharing my thoughts.

I'm happy to try.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair for item 3.1, Clyde Capital groups request for approval or revisions to the vistas at the point of amenities, removing the amphitheater from their required amenities.

Um I move that we approve the proposed uh request to in lieu of an amphitheater uh created a dog park and equivalent value is being placed as justification is being placed into the clubhouse and the overlook park to be consistent with the requirement that uh the amenities require and the amenities offered are of equivalent value as required by code um recognizing that uh that perhaps at face value that the dog park as a gathering space may not truly meet a TOD requirement for a gathering place, but could depending on use of the trail and the overlook park, which are connected based on what the uh applicant shared with us tonight uh that the amphitheater as it was proposed in its proposed location was not able to be constructed there due to the wind study for the what's that part of the state park up there, the flight park the flight park and this allows uh development in that space for a use um consistent with the parameters of the wind study, include all of the DRC comments well.

Second, if we can change one or talk about one thing, please uh I struggle with the comment that or the part of your motion that said that uh does not technically meet a meeting place because we do not have a technical definition for a meeting place.

So strike that from the motion.

I I d I agree with your sentiment, but I I worry putting that into a motion where we do not have a definition for the I agree with that and then remove that.

And my second stance with that.

Do we really think people are gonna ride tracks for the dog park?

Like possibly.

I mean I can't say yes or no.

Okay.

I don't know that I could say they're gonna ride tracks for the dog park any more than they are for the amphitheater per se.

Events can be held at the amphitheater.

That's true.

The um that's where we're getting in debating in the midst of emotion.

Okay, no, we can have discussion.

Sure.

Well, I I guess the the the question I would have is if the if the amphitheater is uh is dead due to the wind study.

It was from my understanding last time it was here, it wasn't that the amphitheater was dead, it was that where the amphitheater was placed was dead.

And now instead of in this section, and and I'm happy to be corrected, but what I'm understanding is that they need a place to put a community gathering spot.

They picked this corner and called it a dog park.

But it like could that have been an amphitheater in that location?

From what I remember, the amphitheater used to be closer to the flight park.

But or right that right which is closer, right?

But now they've come south west slightly.

And they want to do a dog park instead of the amphitheater.

And and I I'm just I don't think it's because that location can't be, but they haven't presented the study, and I don't remember it from May.

I appreciate that.

Second stance.

We have a motion of Mr.

Troma.

Do we have to uh can I withdraw my motion?

So from what I understand the city is adopted now formally should be able to do it if we are withdrawn?

Withdrawn?

Yeah, I'm gonna withdraw the motion.

All right.

Well this I appreciate the comment of the location.

Uh I was uh kind of led to believe that this was where it was originally.

I don't remember this conversation before.

And maybe it could go somewhere else as a gathering place, perhaps.

Um I think the word and approved needs to be further on the applicant than on the commission for this.

I'd agree.

Should we inquire of our Clyde friends?

Would you happen to have anything more you'd like to add?

Um I don't have the wind study with me to show you, but I I understand why you'd want to see that.

The location of the amphitheater in that corner, the sound and the parking and the commercial that's around it just is not ideal.

And that's part of the reason that we if when we do something we want to do it well, and we want it to be a really well-attracted amenity, and it it's just not it's not ideal.

And so that's why we looked at other things.

The sound isn't gonna be as good, the parking isn't gonna be as good, the aesthetic is not gonna be as good with commercial around it.

So and we can provide that wind study.

I understand what you're saying, and that we want a community gathering place.

I understand the sentiment behind it.

That's all I have.

Okay.

I have a question.

What are the two where where the amphitheater was going to be?

What are those two rectangles now?

Um I don't know off the top of my head, to be honest with you.

Like commercial, is it residential?

I believe it's part of the uh um the high density housing in that area.

I'm not sure.

I could I can ask and find out for you.

Get you the plans.

I have a question.

The wind study was done before this uh are these apartment buildings two, three stories do you know hotel?

Um I don't know how many stories they are off the top of my head.

And I the wind study was done after our original plans were done.

Okay.

So these these are built out and these are not all the way built out yet.

But yeah, they changed the structure of the buildings and the height as well.

I don't know how many stories they're now.

That was considered in the wind study was the buildings being there.

Yes.

Yeah.

Did they get you recall if they went they went shorter, I think.

They did go shorter, yeah.

From what I remember, if my memory serves me well certainly right, they had to be reduced in force.

Just off memory, I think they went from five to four stories.

I think there's four because of the wind.

Yeah, that's that sounds right to me too.

I would have to confirm that, but that's not so where the amphitheater was gonna be where it says sky cliffs.

That's where the amphitheater is.

That's where it was, yeah.

So it's kind of surrounded by buildings.

I'm starting to get a clear quick fair.

Anyway, yeah, it it seems like the wind wouldn't be as strong with with it being surrounded by so they they considered that in the study.

Yeah, and this was um with the hang gliding group that is very opposed to this development.

So um like I said, I can provide that to you.

Can you explain?

Sorry, I have a question.

Uh and again, I know you don't have the wind study, but why would putting two four-story buildings where you are gonna have open space have an effect on the wind in the area?

Yeah, that's yeah, right.

I don't know the answer to that.

I'd have to find out.

I would imagine that would be more of a negative thing than a positive thing.

Open space would allow the air to move freer.

Uh right.

I'm not sure what those buildings are.

Let me I'll find out and get back to you.

I can try to do that.

I mean, even if they're even if they're one story, I mean that is gonna have more of an effect on the wind than it is currently now.

Yeah.

I'm wondering if this was a change of going from five stories to four stories, and let's put in more housing.

Let me look at the plans so I I can see if I can find them for you right now.

If I that's helpful remember right, this amphitheater was gonna be be like 60 seats.

I don't know the city.

It was tiny.

And that was that's smaller than the Lehigh Arts Center, which is 85 seats.

Right.

And that's tiny.

It is so I mean, as far as a gathering place, I don't I don't know that this was gonna be a place that people would flock to.

You know.

Right.

I guess this was also approved before the family park amphitheater as well.

It was early 2021.

So there was no amphitheater.

There was no amphitheater at Family Park, yeah.

Or in I guess in the city.

Yeah.

So I think that might have been part of the draw, but now there is one.

Just adding that.

Thanks, Jacob.

Other questions for me.

Thank you, Mr.

I think it's a great amendment.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman, can I just make a statement?

This is the I mean the beauty of the planning commission is this very deliberation that's going on.

The challenge is there's good reasoning being provided, but we're having to dig for it.

If that had been part of what had come before us, where we could have all these kind of comparables and the reasons why and the and the data showing it would make this probably easier.

But I appreciate that we've taken the time to ask questions and get answers.

But man, it's just a tough way to bring something for a like a dog digging for a bone.

Kind of at the dog park.

I mean amphitheater size, that's a good point.

Is it truly a gathering space for a community event?

Whereas maybe the dog park is of greater value in terms of gathering for those that have pets in a space like that.

You know, if it was you know 150 seat amphitheater as a public space as part of a TOD, that's a different swap-out conversation we'd be having.

Yeah.

But if it's truly, and I don't remember the conversation related to the size of this before.

I'm going off what you said, Commissioner.

Yeah, that's I it was when I was writing.

Yeah.

I remember thinking 60 seats.

It's not very that is that is a big classroom.

And the wind study should have been provided so we could have evaluated that.

Yep.

And all these things that we're raising as issues would have helped facilitate getting to a decision one way or the other, but with better better data.

So I have the TOD zone pulled up here, and if it helps to the discussion, um the intent of including non-residential uses within a within a TOD zone is to encourage walking trips and to increase transit ridership.

The TOD zone is envisioned to be both an origin and destination for transit users.

So I see how like the residential component is an origin, but this is a non-residential use within the zone.

Um it'll definitely encourage walking.

But will it increase transit ridership?

Is this something that people come for?

As a destination.

As a destination.

And this is just right out of the TOD chapter 35 section or chapter 35 section 38.

Um amphitheater may have done that, right?

They could have walked to it and then people would have come and gone no matter the size.

But I would just love to see Traverse Mountain, especially.

There's just been some amenities that have never come.

And so I get very, very worried when we had originally in 2021 have told the public it would be something, and then you know, a few years later, it's not going to be the thing they expect it to be.

And I'm I'm very concerned about that, and I don't have a justifiable argument to go to them and say, but this will draw people here just as much as that would.

And this is a part of the TOD.

That's where I'm struggling.

It doesn't necessarily have to be where everyone else is struggling.

No, I I very much take a point though.

And I want to honor the TOD.

Just last meeting we had an application that was going to compromise the TOD as well.

Like I'm really trying to honor that zone.

We've put hours and hours and hours and tons of resources into developing and planning.

I think we need to honor it.

I actually hear the I I could make an argument that this pulls people in much more than an amphitheater of that size, of the small nature of that size, which would limit the type of events or anything that could happen there because of its size.

Having a dog park, especially on the line of transit.

I think of those other high density units near the hospital and other places that are there.

There's a lot of apartment complexes there.

There's a lot of things that are going in over there that if there was this transit line that existed, that would be a very easy trip.

Very close in proximity and would pull them in.

So on that line of thought, if Mr.

Chair, if I can ask the question of the applicant, if this park is maintained by the HOA and those who pay for it come from their HOA dues, are they going to want public access?

Right?

If this can't be used by the public, then that solves that.

Right.

It's an it's not a city dog park.

So they're however I'm not sure what's going on with my mic.

I'm so sorry.

But I don't, again, like if it's a destination for the public to use transit for origin and and destination, but it's owned and operated by the HOA and is closed off to the public.

It really isn't meeting the TOD design.

So the intent of the the dog park is to m is yes, maintained by the HOA, but it is a public space.

Meaning that it's available to everybody.

Kim, is that normal?

So I'm I'm looking in the TOD section too, and I I'm trying to see if it talks about I I think we're maybe looking at Okay.

This is how I see it.

The amenities that we're discussing tonight are for the residential units in the TOD.

I I don't know if I would necessarily say the intent that that was written into here is that you know, every TOD you have to have some kind of an attraction, a roller coaster, a Ferris wheel, whatever, and uh amphitheater.

I I think what we're talking about is amenities that serve these people.

You know what I mean?

That's why it has playgrounds, trails.

So I don't know if you know somebody's gonna come to this TOD to play on one of their playgrounds that I think they still have a couple, or to go up to the lookout.

I I think we're really talking about amenities that serve these people that that make this a place if somebody wants to live in this TOD and stay and if you have a dog, you know, you live here, you have a pet, and you don't have to go, you know, drive your car to go take your dog to Willow Park to the dog park.

Anyways, uh that's uh that would be how I would interpret the amenities that we're talking about.

What is gonna what is a part of your commercial, right?

What is going to draw people here?

Like I think of the Thanksgiving Point TOD.

We obviously have amazing Thanksgiving point offerings that will draw people to that station, they'll walk through the station, they'll spend money at the commercial properties and retail, they'll get to Thanksgiving point, right?

That's what do you what are your commercial opportunities?

Have you guys identified that?

Is there something else that's drawing people here that would meet that requirement?

Um the commercial piece we're working on actively, but that's not been the focus of the development so far.

So um it's a work in progress, and we're planning on you know moving to that part very shortly.

As far as yeah, the driver of you know, folks here.

I mean, a big part of this being the transit-oriented development is thinking about the residents and the amenities uh for those residents in addition to the the transit-oriented nature of this development, obviously with the front runner.

And so yeah, that's why we've proposed and are doing a lot of the amenities in the clubhouse and then the uh the dog park and the um I mean the pool, the fitness center, etc.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm I'm feeling schizophrenic.

Right.

I mean, normally uh yeah, we've I think we all kind of settle into our visual space.

But it gets to the point that you made earlier, uh Brad.

It feels like digging for information and like finding another piece to the jigsaw puzzle.

Um I could see the commercial being that draw.

If it's that's why, yeah.

Yeah, right.

And meaning that well, you guys already know how I feel about TODs anyway.

So uh is this gonna make it a better community with this amenity?

Yeah.

I think uh Commissioner Ayers kind of suggested that it probably is, and I I think I tend to agree with that.

But since we do have it in a zone or uh and code defines that, uh I I want to make sure that we're gonna if we're gonna utilize TOD, let's stick to its definition.

We've already made concessions on other TODs.

Yep.

Um I've always maintained if it's gonna be a transit-oriented development, it's gotta have room for transit riders to come from other places in the city as well to utilize it, if not as transit, but as a destination for something that you can't find somewhere else, right?

That's all tied to the transportation route too, which limits people.

Right.

If if there's commercial, it's gonna be appealing to more than just this area.

Then I see that as a gathering space, even though it's first buying things.

Right.

You know, the mall serves as a gathering place.

Sure.

So if we're looking for a formal gathering place, we'd have defined it, we would have defined that more, I think, in our code for specific uses.

And so pretty broad.

Um but I I still am a little frustrated that it should have been laid out and explained a little better in terms of comparisons and bringing the wind study, show us that.

This isn't gonna work there, and I don't know.

So can we turn the mics down like a notch?

Can we turn the mics down like a notch?

Or at least Commissioner Lockhart.

Yeah, I'm so sorry.

I can only drink the water.

Okay.

All right.

That's all right.

She has a booming voice.

Can we be heard?

Are you guys hearing us okay?

Okay.

Well you had to wake them up to ask that question because they're bored of this discussion.

I agree.

This is uh hours and hours.

I know.

Sometimes that's how it goes.

Well, yeah.

Do we have a right we want to get it right?

I know, I know.

All right.

Are you reinstating your motion?

Are you drawing it?

I'm kinda waiting for a counter motion, maybe.

Yeah.

Emily?

I don't think my counter motion will pass, then so I'm letting you guys do what you do, which overrule me.

Why don't you make a motion?

Let's see what comes by vote undermining us.

Come on.

Well, um, one thought that I had is um why is the dog part the dog park closest to the transit and away from the residents um if it's meant for the residents, right?

So if okay, so we've we've clarified that this amenity is for residential, yet we've put it near the transit where we're supposed to have the destination of you know and of origin and things like that.

And so if I if I'm going to get to the place where I finally see value of a dog park here, um why is it the farthest possible away from those who it's meant for?

Um They are taking that trail.

The trail ends up there, right?

If you pinch that.

So can you show me the the trail path?

We were just talking about this too.

There there are enhanced, I guess, crossings across Mountain Point Wolf.

Yeah, Mountain Point Bills.

That's a really big street.

So it's a huge trail starts up here and then but the trail comes along.

It is a boulevard.

Yeah.

Um flight park road.

So it's trail where it's red.

Yeah, trail's red.

Sidewalk where it's black, yeah, solid black, and then they have to cross five lanes of traffic.

No, it's only two lanes.

Oh, it's two.

Okay.

So it's the it's the tra train in between.

If you haven't been out here, I would actually recommend that you go look at Mountain Point Boulevard.

It's the most unique major street design we've ever done.

The travel lanes are actually only ten feet wide, so it feels very narrow and it's only one lane in each direction.

So and then the it down the middle is where it has medians, it has on street parking, it's very much um yeah, a transit oriented street.

So it's it's a really cool design.

It's got the separated bike protected bikeways on both sides.

So city owned city owned street.

Yes.

Yeah.

Is it does it make a full circle back up to that?

The street.

The the trail.

So we oh um I'm trying to remember where the trail can be.

If they were making a circle.

Yeah, it does we do have a connection to the Murdoch Canal Trail right before it goes to um Traverse Mountain Boulevard, and then there's an underpass.

So you can get to our park.

Um you know, on a grade separated crossing underneath the road.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember.

I know there's some trails and connections internal that I don't think they're all showing.

I think there's some other connections.

Yeah, that's just the streets.

Yeah.

It might even be on Google Earth at this point, because I know they've had some of those trails in for a couple of months.

I'll I'll look and see that's on.

So go ahead.

Well, Mr.

Chair, so the the history of this is when it came back in May, I made a motion to table because we weren't satisfied then.

Right.

Um and the reason why there was a motion to table is because if we deny this application, it's my understanding that it would you'd have to wait a 12 month period to come back.

And so it was tabled to help speed this along and make sure that the applicant didn't meet up, go up against a 12-month waiting period.

Um so in this out of the same thought that I had several months ago, I I don't want to necessarily push a negative recommendation or you know, because I don't want them to be.

I want them to try again.

Um if if it's meant for the residents, put it on the side where the residents are.

speed this along um and make sure that the applicant didn't meet up go up against a 12 month waiting period um so in this out of the same thought that i had several months ago i i don't want to necessarily push a negative recommendation or you know because i don't want them i want them to try again um i if if it's meant for the residents put it on the side where the residents are if it's not meant for the residents don't put it next to transit where all of the nonresidents are coming um so i I just that's why we tabled it last time and if we're not satisfied yet then it would probably be in the best interest for everyone to table it again so that they can try again instead of wait 12 months and and reapply uh I'm I'm with you this this has been whiplash and of course if the other commissioners say no we're super ready to clear this well then it's three to two and you know we can move along um I I'm with you a serious point one the plan changing the burden is on the applicant right it's I want to be as I said I might not be the a dog guy but I can appreciate that you know other things happen in the world that don't revolve around me so not not a problem to entertain something different uh however I am amid all the conversation I am caught up on not seeing the wind study itself to really be able to you know let's let's see that burden approved but additionally the HOA point I think is really solid and thinking through are is this not that I believe the applicant director said that I want to put words in their mouths by any means but you know let's really own is this about this is only going to be for the residents and here are all the myriad of other justifications for how this is still truly a TOD even if we do a dog park or let's do something that really justifies this as a TOD this isn't simply um high density and uh and having amenities that fit that high density I think that's a very important thing that needs to be clear as we make this decision.

I don't think that there's enough understanding for me to make that decision.

I do not want to hold up the um things and I do want to be clear that for all of our occasional snide uh comments Clyde we we take you guys very seriously and think you're doing good work and think it's done in good faith but nonetheless uh burden of proof it it for for me it's it is not there um I'll get circular so I'll shut up at this point but you've you you've won me over Emily and I appreciate you uh taking us to even if it was a freaking hour long conversation to that to that place nope not bad at all and I I really am hoping to to um to help the applicant get there right and we I if we passed a motion to deny you'd have to wait six months so I I think or sorry excuse me 12 um if this is an amenity for the residents it needs to be with like it needs to be closer I think to the where the residents are um so with that I'll make a motion on 3.1 consideration of Clyde Capital group's request for approval of revisions to the vistas at the point amenities removing the amphitheater from their required amenities I move that we table this item again and give the applicant an opportunity to provide the burden of proof um that the for the amphitheater and the and the wind study and why the amplitheater couldn't go where the dog park is being suggested um they need to um provide additional support for this microphone for the evidence of um the dog park being for the residents and if it is going to be for the residents potentially if we can get on board with it being a dog park let's put it where the residents can access it not closest to transit so we'd like to see some other design options um that will meet the needs and and ultimately we'd love to see the intent of the code uh be met here where their uh destination points but both originate here um and then allow people to you know the residents can go out and back second motion and a second all those in favor aye all right any opposed nay someone had to second a normal well and I wasn't I'm share I try to not do those things you know major apologists um yes Adam Michelle thank you uh hope this uh hope this was as fun for you as it was for us and we look forward to yet another exciting evening spent with you in the not too distant future fantastic all right 3.2 Jacob okay okay um item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of Colby Anderson's request for approval of a revision to the Moto United site plan to include an eight foot fence located at I believe it's actually 411 South Mill Pond Drive says 405.

Um item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of Colby Anderson's request for approval of a revision to the Moto United site plan to include an eight foot fence located at I believe it's actually 411 South Mill Pond Drive.

It says 405.

Uh the security fence is just along this north property line where the keynote 20 is.

Um this is not a grade elevation issue or a safety concern, which is why it's here at Planning Commission.

Otherwise it would have ended at DRC.

This is more of a their personal request for security purposes.

Um part of it is that the space that this fenced back there I believe is for loading and unloading some of the recreational vehicles.

So part of it's to protect their inventory um as well.

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

Very good.

Questions for staff.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

All right, sir.

Andrew Ball Twitter with A URB architects.

I'm filling in for Colby who was the applicant.

So very good.

I don't really have anything to add at this point, but happy to answer questions.

Okay.

Well thank you very much.

Oh, very good.

And you come right on back up.

Um what's a CMU security fence?

What does that stand for?

Masonry.

Okay, so you want to do an solid block wall.

Correct.

To eight feet.

Yep.

And it's the purpose is more security, or is it for sound mitigation as well for unloading trucks or anything like that?

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

This is in a fairly light industrial and heavy commercial area, just to clarify too.

Okay.

Thank you, Jacob.

It's not an extra residential, I guess is what I should.

Right.

Um this is a public hearing.

So if there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak to this item, is the time.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion.

Or a motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Oh.

Wow.

Where were you the last hour, Nicole?

Yeah.

I don't want to make a motion on the list.

Let's do it.

All right.

Item 3.2 public hearing in consideration of Colby Anderson's request for approval of revisions to the Moto United site plan to include an eight-foot fence located at 405 South Mill Pond Drive.

I move that we approve the request.

And with the findings, the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general wear welfare, or convenience.

The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City General Plan and purposes of this code.

That the property on which the use building or other structures proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties in the area.

And please include all DRC comments.

I'll second that.

Motion a second.

All is in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Sorry you weren't 3.1.

That could have makes sense in my opinion.

That's a ringing endorsement, Andrew.

Yeah.

I'm out of here.

3.3.

Okay.

Um public hearing.

I think Adam is online for this, right?

On Teams.

Okay.

He's been waiting patiently.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh item 3.3 public hearing in consideration of Adam Albrecht's request for preliminary subdivision subdivision approval of Garden Park.

A four lot residential subdivision located at 500 South Center Street.

This meets all the requirements of the R1 Flex zone.

Four lots that range in size from just over 11,000 square feet to 16, almost 17,000 square feet.

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

Very good.

Questions for staff?

Kim, didn't we see this before?

Or was this uh prices further south?

We'd seen the four lot subdivision at this law before.

You might have done a comment a couple years ago.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um very good.

So you guys hear me.

Sorry.

Can you hear me?

Yep, uh, oh yeah.

Yeah, I was here a couple years ago.

Uh same site, a little bit different layout.

Um yeah, just things were happening over the past couple years and so kind of regrouped and came back with this.

So perfect.

And Adam, I I realize that it's always a little awkward over teams.

Um we're gonna go ahead and just note that you've commented and that's your name and you're the applicant, and we'll just cut through some of the Robert's rules there.

Okay.

No, no, you're fine.

You have anything else you you'd like to add at this point.

No, I Jacob did a good job.

It's it it's a fully conforming um design, you know, for that zone.

So pretty simple.

You know, your main infrastructure, sewer, storm drain, and everything's already there.

We're just gonna be running a bunch of laterals and widening the roads.

Okay, very good.

So uh thank you very much.

Then uh I'll go ahead and move us uh in into public hearing.

Uh this is a public item.

There's anyone from the public who like to speak to it.

Now is the time.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing, bring it back to the commission for deliberation or a motion.

I just have a question if I could ask that one.

Please fire away.

Um Adam, is my recollection is did the the first time it came through.

Did they all front um Center Street?

They did, yeah.

So we've turned the two on the north to north south and facing 500 south, right?

Yeah, and there were a couple things at play there.

The code for distance between driveways on the collector road was increased, which would have uh made it would have prohibited all four facing center, and then there was some concern with the railroad crossing too.

They wanted you know, they didn't I thought we made the the south lot as wide as we could just to kind of keep it as far away from that crossing as we could too.

The driveway, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, so all right.

Like it's a little safer, safer design this way.

Okay.

Thank you.

There was a DRC comment.

This is for the applicant.

Um there was a DRC comment about the name of the subdivision.

Yeah, it's not uh it it's supposed to be garden park.

That was uh just uh clerical error, I guess.

Oh, unless I said a DRC, you know, if if Paige wins, maybe we'll keep it keep it like all bricked.

I don't know.

Name it after her if we if she wants us to know.

But no, it it is yeah.

Oh, if she loses, yeah, then definitely not.

Um it's it should be garden park.

I'll make a motion if we'll take one.

Yeah, please.

All right.

Uh item 3.3, public hearing consideration of Adam Aubak's request for preliminary subdivision approval of garden park.

Four lot residential development located at 500 South Center Street.

A move that we approve.

Um they propose preliminary subdivision uh with the finding.

I move that we recommend public hearing and consideration.

Yeah, this is approval.

This is a final body.

Yeah.

Okay.

Not preliminary subdivision, but you are super approval.

Not recommending we are doing it.

Offering uh sorry, I'm offering a motion to approve.

Um with the findings that the proposed subdivision does meet the requirements of the Lehigh City Development Code in regards to subdivision approvals.

And I will include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second, all those in favor.

I need posed.

Congratulations, Adam, on whatever you call the subdivision.

Thanks, guys.

Appreciate it.

Yep.

Have a good night.

Have a good night, okay.

You too.

All right.

The penultimate last item.

3.4.

Yeah.

And Mike is unfortunately was not able to be here with us.

This is his item.

So if you have any beef with it, take it up with Mike in an email.

But uh this is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to chapter 37, the connectivity standards.

And Mike did a really good job specifying the sp you know the specific details of the changes in his narrative.

A lot of them are minor, you know, updating some definitions, changing the phraseology from trail to share you shared use path to match UDOT's terminology.

Then there are some other more specific details that we can kind of look at individually if you'd like to.

And some of this has been kind of influenced by recent projects and trying to codify, you know, connections at the end of a cul-de-sac, for example.

Um to have a 10-foot path instead of a sidewalk to help all active transportation modes.

Um Kim and I are happy to go into details if you want to on individual items.

If there's something that you saw that you're curious about, yeah, I don't know.

But I'll turn over the planning.

Commissioner questions.

The 10 foot path.

Yeah.

Does that include planter on each side?

Because we did that in one place where the actual path is narrower because you have like a two-foot um landscape on each side of that, right?

Yeah, and that's actually in the DRC comments.

The park staff had, and I thought it was a good suggestion.

Um the the opening would be 20 feet, so yeah, you'd have a 10-foot path, five feet on each side, but they it becomes difficult to plant a tree in that five feet.

So their suggestion was, you know, maybe you have a couple of bands and where it gets wider, that's where you could actually put some trees that might be a better fit for larger vegetation.

But yeah, it does have landscaping.

So it's not just fencing trail, kind of a path has to be 10 feet wide, or just the okay, so it's actually wider than that, depending on.

Yeah, so the opening is 20.

Yep.

So we get more electric motorcycles cruising through there.

Yeah.

And I would just add probably the the actual main impetus for to bring this forward.

And while we were looking at it, we Mike made a lot of these other minor updates.

It looks like a lot of red lines, but most of it is changing trail to shared use path.

And again, that's just so that everything's consistent with our bike and pedestrian master plan, UDOT's terminology.

But really, the really big one is at the very end, and what we were trying to do, this and I'll just be totally open and transparent that it related to the collective project up on Timpanogas Highway.

We've been waiting for you to do that, Ken.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

We always try and be transparent, right?

Um we wanted to give the developer on that project an option.

There is a lot of concern with residents that live in that area that because the collective project, it you know, it has the whole foods and a lot of retail, and there's a stub road that stubs into their project, and so they were required to connect under our our connectivity standards currently.

We didn't have any other ability other than to connect, but this would give the opportunity, um, but it does put it into the hands of the developer.

They don't it's it doesn't force them, but it gives at least it adds this tool into our connectivity standards where we could have, if the developer was willing, not made the connection, but made a bike and pedestrian connection only, and and then that road could have stayed closed to vehicular traffic but open to other modes.

We've already gone down that path.

The developer in in this specific instance said no, we want to go ahead and connect the road.

We have no way to force them not to connect the road, but we felt like it was valuable, you know, as the all of these issues have come forward.

We thought, you know, that it doesn't help them, but we should put this in here for future so that we have some other way to address if if a similar situation comes up.

So and it also does we've never really defined local street and what volumes on a local street are acceptable and not acceptable.

That is one other addition, is that it defines a local street and it and it says if if the anticipated additional traffic kicks it over, I think it's 2500 trips.

Then it opens up some other opportunities to to try and calm that street, add the motor modal filters, those types of things.

So that's kind of the meat, is what I'm describing, and then the rest of it is just some other, you know, as we we thought, well, let's read through all of it and make any other updates while we're at it.

So I got a question on that.

So it helped me understand if a developer came in and their like spillage of traffic was gonna come into a neighborhood.

So it helped me understand if a developer came in and their like spillage of traffic was gonna come into a neighborhood, this would allow the city you know to essentially say you have to put traffic calming measures in on those residential streets outside of their parcel.

Um yeah, so it's in this paragraph right here.

The city may consider improvements that uh deter through vehicular traffic on local streets and residential areas if their traffic study shows that it kicks it over the 2500, and then it it these other standards could be uh considered.

I don't know if it requires it.

Let's see, I'm trying to we have to it says maybe considered so I'm I'm guessing it's it's somewhat of a negotiation between the city council the developer and oh you've hit the 2500 and one, so now we want you to put traffic calming on this residential street, and it's essentially a part of the or they can close the street.

Like if you want it connected, you've got to do these things for this neighborhood, or you can just not connect at all.

Yeah, that's what this is trying to allow.

And has has um fire and police weighed in on this as far as connectivity goes for first response?

Yeah, yeah, I know Gary and the fire marshal when it went through DRC, and I don't think Gary had any concerns.

He will always make sure, you know, that he's got oh, he wants to be able to use the shared use paths for emergency vehicles.

That's how they're getting it.

Because I was gonna say it's that would be the biggest red flag, right?

If we've got these big retailers or things like that coming in, how do how do we get our first responders?

Yeah, yeah.

But if he f feels like it's sufficient, yeah, the other ways to get into a site occasionally too.

So so if you choose tonight to recommend approval, you'd want to make sure you include the DRC comment so that we can add that language that Gary suggested.

So maybe I missed it, Kim, but is there anywhere in this that talks about curb cuts for where vehicles are dumped onto roads?

Uh sorry, from a path, shared use path onto a road.

We have trails throughout our city that dump onto a sidewalk that do not have a curb cut.

And so drivers go all around it, they're riding on the sidewalks to get onto the trail, getting in people's way, it's dangerous for them.

There's no direct access for them other than stopping, getting off their bike, and then upping the curb, or getting on a sidewalk and riding along.

Why do we not have that in our code?

We we do now.

And it's in it's in the design standards manual.

We I think in our last update, because yeah, unfortunately, Jordan Willows.

Well, Jordan Willows, you've got the new, you've got the newer connection that's out on 900 north that connects the Jordan Willow Trail, dumps right onto a sidewalk, and there's no curb there.

I mean, there's a curb there.

But no ramp.

No ramp.

We actually have added I if I don't know if it's the same one on 900, it's in the college farms.

We actually went in and retrofitted and we did a curb cut.

So we're there for a while.

But anyways, but no, it's I as a bike rider, it is super annoying when you have to bump down the curve.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It does make it a little challenging when those dump you out into the middle of a street versus an intersection.

And and a lot of it is the ADA requirements, but we've discovered there's a different type of they call it detectable warning tiles.

So if you're blind and you you have your you know you're feeling your way along, there's different types of tiles that you can put in, but we want to make sure we use the right tile so that somebody who's blind doesn't think they're going into a intersection that has a receiving ramp on the other side, it has a different pattern, and they're it basically tells them this has a ramp, but you you know there's nowhere to go on the other side.

So anyways, we've tried to address that for new developments, unfortunately.

Right.

It'll be a retrofit for yeah, that's what all of this is for.

It's for future development and stuff recurring.

So we learned as we go sometimes.

So I I see um number six as a incredibly resident first.

Um there's so many there's I I just had a conversation with with someone uh over in the exchange and you know, things like that where they're they're dealing with people spilling in to access 2100 and all of that kind of stuff.

So I I see this as a great tool for the city to use if they need to as long as the shared path if it meets the requirements.

So um that would be my only concern is that if we're not specific enough and they close the st if the developer chooses to close the street, but they don't improve the shared path to m to hold the first responder, you know, the ambulance and things like that.

That it that could be a corner cut that results in the loss of a life.

So that that would be something I would want to make sure is included.

Yeah.

We're thinking Mike maybe already updated this with Garyan's comment for that that because yeah, exactly what you just said, right?

To make sure you still have the access for emergency vehicles when needed if the streets are closed.

So will you hear a motion on item three point four?

Oh, public hearing.

Yeah, we've not done public hearing.

My apologies.

That's all right.

That's all right, let's go ahead and do that.

So this is a public hearing.

So like to speak to this item.

Now's the time.

Oh, we've got a cover.

State your name and fire away.

My name is Peter Ovard.

And I approve of the suggested changes.

I think that they make sense in terms of updating the code uh to be in line with U dot.

And I also agree with the implementation of modal filters traffic calming all of the above items in section six.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right.

So so many other attendees.

I just love to hear from that.

All right.

I guess we'll go ahead and close public hearing.

Love to hear that motion.

Okay.

Um on item three point four public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to chapter 37 connectivity standards.

Um I move that we positively recommend this item to the city council.

And with the findings that it is in line with the intent of um the city's code and that it adds and updates definitions.

It's adding provisions to the circulation plan requirement that the city may require modal filters, scre street closures, or access management improvements.

Um, and that it's changing trail the shared use path throughout the chapter to be more specific and match U dot's terminology, and it's removing the hard maximum block length requirements for the optional master plan trail and greenway exceptions.

Um I include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion in a second, all is in favor.

Any opposed.

Well, congratulations, Lehigh City.

Yeah.

City business.

Yeah.

Um probably first reminder with follow-up to the work session from last week.

Um I guess Emily, you weren't there, right?

So with I know the slides were sent out, and then there was some homework to to look at.

So I think you can actually watch the work session online if you really want to.

So anyways, that's just for everybody.

Homework.

Um probably the other item is the meeting in two weeks.

Um has a few general plan amendments on it because of how August worked on the submittal.

So that's probably just a warning that a few of them could be interest the the that means interesting.

Yeah, it could be interesting.

And then in addition to that, um the SHAR ordinance is on there.

Oh good.

So if you is it a Britney meeting, I was gonna say, uh it's actually Katie.

So are you not gonna be there?

I don't think I'm gonna be used.

That's uh what's the date on that one?

Yeah.

I think part of the reason we it was potentially gonna go on the meeting tonight, but it got pushed to the 25th because Craig wanted to be here to answer.

I bet he does.

Yeah.

Those were his words.

Yeah.

Craig's not gonna be here, I'll be here again.

Don't uh don't we need the second before we engage in that?

Yeah, this I'm correct.

So anyways, that's the city business.

Yeah, yeah.

There's a good chance, too, that I'm gonna be gone that night.

All right, but I'll be here.

Okay.

Well, motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and a second, all is in favor.

Aye.

Always move.

If you wanted to talk more about you, we appreciate it.

We just keep moving.