The guy that's back in the house.

I think it's you.

Tyson.

No, no, that was I mean it could be me, but it's not me.

It's whoever's here for so bad.

Five meeting as they have been presented.

Second.

Motion has second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any posed?

All right.

I guess we're off to an okay start.

Item 3.1, regular agenda.

Item 3.1 is public hearing and recommendation of Austin Cooper's request for review of the R 122 zoning for the JDH Olson annexation.

Approximately 5.08 acres located at approximately 1,500 south and 1100 west.

The planning commission's responsibility is to review the proposed annexation and determine whether or not the requested zoning complies with the general plan.

The applicant is requesting the zoning to be R 122, which meets the general plan designation of very low density residential agriculture.

There were two DRC comments.

Please include them in your motion.

This item will then move on to City Council for final approval.

This is a public hearing item.

There were no online comments for this, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Sir.

If you'd like to speak to this, you don't have to, but you're welcome to.

Okay.

Very good.

This is a public hearing.

So we'll go ahead and move into that portion of things.

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

All right.

There was no on this one.

Yeah.

Okay.

So uh no comment from the public.

We'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for a motion or discussion.

It it meets I'd love to make a like excuse me, if item 3.1 public hearing recommendation of Austin Cooper's request for review of R 122 zoning for the JDH Olson annexation at approximately loc or approximately located at 1500 south, 1100 west.

I move that we offer a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings that the proposed application does conform with the goals and policies of the general plan.

And that is my motion.

I'll second that.

Motion is second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Sorry, where the DRC comment comments?

Oh, did you include the ERCs?

I will include all DRC comments.

Beautiful.

Mr.

Cooper's heart skipped a beats.

Sorry.

Do we need to revote on that?

Do we need a second stance?

Great.

All is in favor.

Aye.

Wonderful.

Mr.

Cooper.

You're welcome to continue hanging out.

But you just got through in three minutes.

Good for you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Item 3.2.

Sorry, my mouse is broken today.

Um item 3.2 is public hearing and a recommendation of Jordan Lee's request for review of the Lee General Plan amendment on uh 0.5 acres located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the land use designation from MDR uh medium density residential to commercial.

Uh there are similar projects in the area that have added non-residential uses along Main Street, um, changing them from not residential to non-residential.

Um, and this proposal is similar.

The applicant indicated plans to develop an office warehouse building.

All industrial storage mentioned in the narrative uh would be indoor, which would be permissible under the commercial zone.

There were two comments from the DRC, and please include all DRC comments in your motion.

Uh this is a legislative item.

The planning commission will give a recommendation to the city council, and the council will ultimately decide if the general plan amendment will be approved or not.

This is a public hearing item, and there were no online comments, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Any questions for staff?

So is that what uh fairly consistent with the with other non recent non-residential plan amendments?

It's fairly consistent.

Explain that just a little bit for me.

Um yeah, so there have been other projects um in the area that have been changed to um like a non-residential use, just pulling up the the map here.

Um I believe it was this mixed use development.

Um I believe it was this mixed use development, um the um beacon point that originally had the land use change to uh mixed use for that project to go through.

And then there was another zone change um to have it go to commercial, so that's kind of what the report was getting at.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chance has that question?

Please.

Um, can you help um enlighten us the biggest difference is between neighborhood commercial and commercial?

Yeah.

Um so neighborhood commercial, it just has a bit more there's a couple more restrictions on it than the commercial uses.

Um namely like the operation the hours of operation.

Um there's a certain, I believe it's like 10 p.m.

is when um businesses in the neighborhood commercial zone can operate until whereas in the commercial zone they can operate until our standard municipal um ordinance allows it.

I think it's midnight.

Um yeah, there's just some other like buffering requirements that are required in the neighborhood commercial zone.

Um just like some setback things, but a couple different uses, but they're tended to be more residentially focused in the neighborhood commercial rather than commercial.

Okay, and is there a reason why this applicant wants commercial instead of neighborhood commercial?

Like why what's pushing them?

What what are they getting in the commercial designation that they wouldn't be getting otherwise?

Yeah, I believe it's the office warehouse use that they're looking for.

Um that currently is not allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone.

So that's the main difference.

Thank you.

Anything else for staff?

Yeah, I got a question about that last comment.

So in the narrative, there was this idea of indoor storage.

Um do we limit their ability, like someone's ability to come to an indoor storage facility at two o'clock in the morning?

Like the one across the street that's just down the road from this that we have an indoor storage facility that's on the other side of the park.

Could they not go at two or three a.m.

in the morning if they wanted to?

You said midnight was the the operations for our our hours of operation.

Yeah.

Um that facility zone commercial, not neighborhood commercial.

I can't.

But they're asking for commercial here.

Yeah.

Right.

And it would be a similar use, but you said midnight, so I was just confused.

I wanted clarification.

I was not aware that a business could not operate after midnight.

I mean, yeah, that that is in our municipal code, and so um that is kind of governed by that, and so I'm not honestly I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Um that's for neighborhood commercial.

Oh, neighborhood is but she said 10 o'clock for neighborhood commercial.

Correct.

Midnight for commercial.

There's no there's no limit in commercial, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Unless it's a conditional use and you impose that.

But but we don't have it in our code, correct?

On our development code, no.

Okay.

That was the first I'd heard about it.

Yeah, we have two different things.

I did not know that was okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted clarification on that.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right.

Is the applicant present?

Sir, would you like to speak to the item?

Um you don't have to?

Yeah, the option.

My my brother and I run a large real estate investment firm, so we have a brokerage, we have property management.

So to address like the the warehouse space, like with pro property management, we also have a lot of a handyman.

So it would be useful to build a store equipment, store maybe lawn, you know, equipment, things like that.

And it would just make it so that you know our real estate business, our property management business, everything could be under the same the same roof essentially.

So we're not looking to be there at 3 a.m.

But yeah, you know, uh I know what we're looking to do, it's just so that everything can work together properly.

Was there any other questions?

What's your name?

My name's Robert Lee.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So if there's anyone from the public like to speak to this item.

Now's the time.

All right.

We had no online comments for this one either, I believe.

No.

Okay.

Back to the commission then.

Well, he's looking at Emily.

Oh, I'm I'm ready for any by thought.

Mr.

Jared, can I make a motion?

Sure.

Sure.

I would like to recommend a positive recommend recommendation for Jordan Lee's request for review of the Lee General Plan amendment on 0.5 acres located at 1033 West Main Street.

Changing the land use designation from medium density residential to commercial with the findings that it won't negatively impact the neighbors.

With the plan of the city.

And please include all DRC comments.

Very good.

Can we discuss the motion a little?

Of course.

Can we strike the most or the finding that this is in conformance with the general plan?

Because it's not.

If it's not, then yes, I would agree with that.

Right.

The general plan says MDR.

Yep, right.

This is amending.

Yeah.

No, I would uh I would say the important thing to note is that there were no negative comments from any clearly there's no one with an adjoining property that has an issue with the direction this is going.

Because it doesn't jive with the general part.

But if that's okay, then I I'd like to second his motion.

Okay.

Motion and a second.

All is in favor?

Any opposed?

No.

Okay.

So noted.

All right.

Item 3.3.

Um item 3.3 is public hearing and consideration of lifetime fitnesses requests for approval of the lifetime fitness concept plan, seeking an exception to have parking between the building and the street, located at approximately 300 east Traverse Terrace Drive.

Uh the applicant would like to place the building uh near to Bonogos Highway, so there would be parking in between the building and uh terrace.

Was it uh Traverse Terrace Drive?

Uh the proposed building location is right next to a uh planned trail corridor.

The intent of the code requiring to have no parking between the building and the street was to increase increase pedestrian activity.

The intent is still met in this case because the building will be located next to a planned trail.

Uh the DRC reviewed the proposed concept plan, and many of the comments relate to the future site plan.

Um this is an administrative item, uh, but the plan and commission has discretion in approving the exception or not.

Uh this is a public hearing item, and there were no online comments for this, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Any questions for staff?

I I have a question with the rendering.

It's not it's kind of off site.

It's something they put on here.

I don't know if it's part of the real plan or not.

The trail that's here on the right side of the left side.

Is that an underpass that they're showing there?

Where it goes under the or is that a tabletop?

It's hard to for me to tell what they've depicted there, where it crosses the road.

It is an underpass.

Why does the road taper then?

Just to shorten the distance for the pedestrian road pedestrian.

But the okay.

So the pedestrians would still be well, obviously there'd be a crosswalk, but okay.

I was just curious, and I don't know that's not for formally part of this.

I was just curious with the depiction there.

Thank you.

All right.

Anything else for staff?

Mr.

Chairman, may I ask a question?

Please.

Are they overparked?

That's quite a bit of parking.

Um I believe the applicant could speak to that.

Um I just don't know off the top of my head.

Okay, cool.

Good question.

Okay.

Uh is the applicant present.

Come on up, sir.

I assume uh there were no other questions for staff, yes.

Okay.

State your name and beavers of lifetime.

If it doesn't fit, I have your presentation.

Is that sharing?

Yeah, we can go out on that.

Yeah, we can go out on the while she's pulling that out.

To answer some of your questions first, the crossing over the street.

That it's not an underpass, it's actually an accurate crossing.

It's just a standard city detail with that taper into the street, so it shortens that distance.

And then the parking, um, we are over the minimum required.

Our understanding there isn't the maximum requirement that we're exceeding.

The quantity we have in there is really consistent with a lot of clubs we have across the country.

It's an amount that we're really comfortable with that gives us a little bit of flexibility in the lot, so we're not overflowing our lots into adjacent developments.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Short answer, yes.

Thanks, Nisha.

I think primarily what I wanted to talk through today is just context around how we got to the concept plan that we have, and also give you a little glimpse into what's going to be at this club and some of the amenities that we'll be providing.

So first slide that's coming up on screen here is just to zoom out at the overall Skyview Master Plan showing where we sit in that southeast corner.

I think important to point out here how Traverse Terrace Drive dead ends to into that corner of our parcel there.

So we don't really have a lot of city street frontage to a butt up to, but as staff mentioned, we do have that greenway going north-south along that western edge.

So really we're trying to engage with that versus engaging with the street.

So hoping that putting the parking to the north doesn't block that engagement because we're engaging to that west side there.

You can go to the next one.

So then we just have some slides here of our floor plans for the club.

This is one of our prototypical athletic country clubs.

Uh it's about a hundred thousand square feet, so we're super excited about the amount of amenities and offerings we can bring here.

I think specific to the item we're bringing tonight, it's worth pointing out that we have one singular point of entry to the club.

It's shown at the top middle there.

So all members, all users of the club come in through that one centrally located access point.

We have a grand reception area, and we typically like to flank that with a lot of activity.

So we got our life cafe, our life spa, our work lounges, all of that kind of in that central hub when you enter.

Um the first floor also has our locker rooms, our indoor lap and leisure pools, and then our kids programming.

You can jump to the next one.

And that entranceway is to the north.

Yes, it's oriented to the true to plan here.

Yeah.

Second floor is then when we get into a lot of our fitness offerings.

So our machines, free weights, cardio equipment, a lot of that's on the right side of the plan here.

And then left side is our group studios, um, group fitness classes, and then of course you can see the pickleball courts.

We have four indoor pickleball courts at this club.

Next one.

So getting into the specifics of the concept plan here.

Um, first thing to speak to to how we got to this specific building orientation is nice square site.

Unfortunately, a lot of grade change.

So from the north boundary to the south boundary, we've got over 30 feet of grade we're dealing with.

So that coupled with just the size of our building and the size of our pool deck, like all that being at one elevation, it's really challenging for us to put the building north-south.

So that's how we got to this east-west orientation.

And then shifting the building south off of Traverse Terrace was primarily to get as much of our parking as possible, as close as possible to that one singular point of entry.

A lot of that's driven by member experience, but also pedestrian safety.

The shorter distance we can get between where people are parking and where they're entering the club, the safer our parking lots are.

So that's what got us to that building location.

Um you can see, I think in this enlargement, how we're planning to engage with that greenway.

We have our primary pedestrian connection going to that secondary vehicular access point.

So hopefully less vehicular traffic coming through there.

It's also where we think a lot of the pedestrian traffic is going to be coming through through that greenway.

You know, if you're driving, you're gonna come down Traverse Terrace.

If you're walking, you're ideally gonna be coming down that greenway.

So we'd like to do some kind of a pedestrian plaza bike node type amenity right at that entrance to just be another feature there that tells people, hey, this is where you walk into the site.

And there's a nice clear route right to the front of the building.

I think lastly, I just want to point out that we this layout allows us to put our pool deck directly adjacent to that greenway.

So just a fun way to bring a little bit of activity and life to that space.

So that's really how we got to the layout that we have here.

And so all I have for you today.

If you have any questions, happy to provide any context.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

So you're connected into the trail system, which is great.

What is your plan for bike parking?

You you kind of talked about some form of a plaza, but do you have enough?

Yeah, so a lot of it will be at that location where we're tying into the greenway.

And then we're also planning for more.

It's tough to see in this image, but at the northeast corner of the building is where we're going to put the remainder of our bike parking if people want to park a little bit closer to the front door.

Yeah, it's typical of a building your size to some ask for an exception on the bike requirement.

Have you done that?

We have not.

We're we're gonna plan to meet the minimums.

I think it's close to 30 racks, something like that, but we have quite a bit of space here where we feel we can fit it.

You can fit that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, it's most um applicants with a building your size will ask to put five instead.

So it's interesting that you didn't.

We figured with the adjacency to the greenway.

We might actually get a little more bike traffic here, and knowing we'd wanted to come ask for this exception.

It didn't feel like something we need to push on.

We're comfortable with that requirement.

Thank you.

You are promoting an active lifestyle, clearly.

So may I ask a question?

Yes, please.

I just appreciate it as comments.

Is the layout as you presented it here necessary?

Like could they be flipped?

Could the pool be east?

A lot of it is driven by how members flow through the space of that club outdoor, outdoor pool deck.

The plan right side of our club is where a lot of our service and access comes to, so we didn't want to put that up against the greenway.

So if we flip them, then we'd have to flip the building as well, and it puts that all those service and access things up against the greenway.

The reason I ask is because you're you're closer to the pedestrian access to the bikers that would potentially come into this area.

Um it does put you a little further from the parking or the majority of the parking.

Right.

Um so I I understand you know, bringing yourself closer to that.

But I was just curious if there was any flexibility there.

I think that's the driving factor and understanding we're a little bit farther away from that connection.

That's why we tried to make the on-site circulation as streamlined as possible from from that connection.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

We'll see if we end up bugging it a bit more.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

All right.

Someone's got an alarm set for it.

Um all right, seeing no comments.

We'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for discussion or motion.

I'll make a motion.

All right.

Okay.

Item 3.3 public hearing in consideration of lifetime fitness requests for approval of the lifetime fitness content plan.

Seeking an exception to having parking between the building and the street located at approximately 300 east Traverse Terrace Drive.

I move that we give a positive approval.

Yes, approval is positive.

Um, with the findings that the concept exception will still allow pedestrian access to the building.

That the concept is consistent with the Lehigh City Development Code and conforms with the goals and policies of the general plan.

Please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Halfway through.

Halfway through.

Kind of.

Item 3.4.

Item 3.4 is public hearing and consideration of Johnny Warner's request for approval of a conditional use for Warner Transport and dirt storage located at seven uh seven seven four nine one west, eight one seven nine north, um approximately eight hundred east and eight fifty south.

The proposed use is considered rock, sand, gravel, and topsoil storage and distribution, which is conditional in the light industrial zone.

The applicant is proposing to use the existing home as office space and then partitioning off the remainder of the site for various piles of material.

The applicant is still working through uh DRC comments and the site plan layout, but would like to receive consideration for the use.

The DRC had 13 red line comments, including to add screening treatment and buffering to west, south, and east boundary areas.

And that all all areas with outdoor storage of equipment or materials need to be screened from 700 south and pioneer crossing with a six-foot high solid fence.

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Conditional uses are administrative items, but the planning commission can put reasonable conditions on the use that are related to any potential negative impacts.

But with that, I turned it back to the commission.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

Very good.

Is the applicant present?

Sir.

Anything you care to add or say?

I guess.

Just if you guys have any questions.

Commission.

Come on up and state your name for the racker.

My name's Johnny Warner.

One of the things I will I will add is this is we've we've been here before.

Well, in on this site, um, we weren't following all the rules and guidelines.

Um, and I've you know, the neighbor next door has clearly told me that she wants it to be better than it was before, and I've promised her that.

Um I promise you guys it will be way better than it was before.

Um I mean, obviously I don't have a PowerPoint and all the nice pictures, but um I do plan on having having it be accessible for Lehigh City and all the residents, right?

Like I mean, con bringing in concrete and recycling it.

There's I mean, on the very north side of Lehigh, there is one spot that you can recycle concrete, nowhere else.

Um, nowhere else.

Um this will benefit Lehigh City and their residents.

Um especially with Pioneer Crossing beer being right there, it will be easy access.

Hopefully in the future, it'll be way easier access to get there.

Um yeah, like I'm trying to configure it all to where it meets all your guys' standards, and I mean it is a little bit harder to meet all those standards.

Um, being a smaller guy to where um I am trying to do everything possible to meet all those standards.

Um, and I will continue to as going forward.

So Mr.

Chair, I may ask a question.

Please.

Can you speak to the issues you were having before and the steps you've taken to mitigate those?

Yeah, so the one of the issues was zoning, um, obviously.

Just a little one.

Yeah, just a little one.

Um we kind of grew up in the era of you know, you do what you can or do what you want with your property, right?

Um the bit one of um I'll speak for the next door neighbor.

Her biggest concern was dust and oil spills.

Um dust, I've already got the water trailer ready to go, ready to water as much as I mean, it fills every hour, so I can water.

I put a minimum just of four times per day, just so we are good.

As soon as that water trailer is full, we're gonna be watering.

Um we've got dump trucks and all that coming in and out.

Um I want to make sure there's me and her have talked extensively since even meeting with these guys.

Um I mean like a week ago we were talking for over an hour.

So I am aware of her concerns.

I'm aware of Pioneer Crossing concerns of dust that will be handled immediately and um effectively.

So I've gone through the the fugitive dust control plan.

I've made a plan with the on online um so that's all taken care of.

Uh yeah, so I will be the dust for sure, the oil we're definitely planning to you know contain to where isn't any spills and we can make sure it's all contained.

Okay.

Thank you for sharing.

I happen to work at an office building right next to a concrete company in their days where we'll get about this much of dust all over our cars and everywhere.

So I can absolutely understand why your neighbor's concerned.

Yeah.

Um I'm I'm grateful to hear that you have a plan.

Are your employees are they trained and and on that plan that it's not just an idea, but you're actually going to implement the mitigation to so we're not in there yet.

Um and so the second we move all the trucks over there, I'm having a meeting with all of them.

Um another concern was speed, right?

I mean, I have heard that 820 north is the hundred mile an hour road where all the teenagers teenagers go.

Um that will not be the case with my trucks.

All my trucks, if I have a complaint, it will be handled immediately and possibly termination because of it, because that's how important it is to keep that relationship with the neighbor.

Um and all the I mean, all the way down 820 north and 700 south.

There's a lot of neighbors.

I want all the customers that I'll have coming in, they will know keep your speed down, keep it reasonable.

Um, don't go over, basically.

Um that will be my main focus as of right now because I don't want to have any issues.

Okay.

And if Mr.

Chair, if you don't mind if I ask another question.

Um hours of operation.

So hours of operation.

I can't remember what I put in my application.

Um I'm pretty sure I put six to seven, maybe.

I can't remember.

Um most likely my employees will be showing up at six almost every morning.

Um they'll be starting their trucks.

I'm I if well, you can't see because it's not up there, but I set my trucks away from the neighbor's house enough to where that will so if you look on the right hand side, the whole right hand side will be truck parking.

The employees will park in front of the house, which as of right now, I don't actually plan to use it.

I was kind of debating on whether to use it as an office.

Right now I'm kind of at the point where I'm like there's a lot of work that needs done in it, so I'm not really looking at using that as an office, but all the semis and dump trucks will be on the east side of the property to where it won't affect if I'm understanding what's been presented to us correctly, it's gonna go on the right, and then you have that house that could potentially be an office for you, and then next to that it would be your neighbor.

Yes.

Okay, so with between your trucks and your neighbor is is your property in a and a residence for you.

Okay.

Yeah.

The closest thing to them is a home, not your trucks.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, and the other plan is so right behind the how the house.

Well, first off, we'll have the fence, we'll have the 12-foot buffer right behind the house.

The plan is to build concrete walls so that I can put material in each uh slot, like gravel, different types of gravel, basically.

So she'll essentially have two sets of buffers.

The sound, the dust, everything sh should be controlled by those concrete blocks.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Describe me your business a little better so I understand it.

Is this are are your trucks hauling and haul out or are third parties hauling in?

There will be uh third parties hauling in and out.

Do you have a designated haul route for anyone who uses your business?

I I mean, in my head, I do.

Um in my head, so what we've done in the past was go down center, come off Pioneer Crossing, go down Center Street, go to 700 South and down.

That's always been that's kind of been our I mean, we were I'll give you some background.

We were parked there for 15 years or thir 13 years before we had to move out because of zoning.

Um Center Street was the designated route off Pioneer Crossing.

Obviously, we can't come down from Main Street because there's no trucks allowed on off Main Street to Center Street.

Um so Pioneer Crossing 2700 South down.

So that's that's the basically the the plan.

And all my all my drivers and my customers will know they need to come down center street 2700 south.

Well, I I know you can't truly control your third party users, right?

But your your trucks all my trucks will be coming down center street for sure.

Yeah.

I I would I would want to make that conditional that you have a formal hall route.

Okay.

And that it's implemented and trained and used for for my trucks or everybody else.

I want I mean I would like you to have a uh stated plan to people that use your business, your patrons, right?

However, knowing that you do not necessarily fully control they're not your employees, those are not your under your full control.

Yeah.

I still would like a plan for given to your people that come and use your business.

For sure.

Right.

Yeah.

I mean, all my existing customers will know that.

I'm I can't like you said, I I have all that frontage to where everybody's gonna see that they can come get like you can come get landscape rock for your flower beds.

Right.

That's basically what this is gonna be.

Um also I don't know if you guys noticed the concrete recycling.

That is going to benefit Lehigh City immensely.

I mean, we either have to go to Pleasant Grove or the point of the mountain.

It's it's costing everybody a lot of money, to be honest.

I mean, if I have to go from you know, Central Lehigh to the point of the mountain or to Pleasant Grove, it's costing you guys an extra two hundred dollars per load.

Um also with Pioneer Crossing under construction right now.

I have I I have part of the trucking contract with that.

I have been in contact or been in conversation with them, possibly one wanting to dump their concrete at my uh property to recycle because they're finding that they don't need the product that they were thinking they were gonna need.

So that could be a huge benefit for them in that construction.

So Mr.

Warner, forgive me if I'm telling you anything you already know.

Um I I feel the trepidation of a man who is worried about keeping his business going.

So I want you to breathe just a little bit here.

Yeah, for sure.

Um let me explain a little bit.

You may you may have noticed that this uh, and this is not to give a pass, right?

We'll we'll get to that part in a second for you.

This is administrative.

So we have administrative items and we have legislative items.

We've had one legislative item this evening where we have leeway, right?

Where we're uh when it comes to administrative, it's uh the question isn't so much yes or no, as long as or rather I should say it's black and white.

That'd be the better way to put it.

This is administrative.

So you are now in the right zone, which is different from your previous situation.

Yep.

Breathe.

You're gonna feed it.

But this is where the black and white part comes back to you, right?

We need to make sure that you're in proper order because those rules are of course in place to ensure that your neighbor is getting the quality of life.

Right, the she should for sure.

So why don't you uh I mean I noticed that right now we're talking about you're still in the process, love this, good, we're going the right direction.

Um you are currently looking to get yourself going partway, right?

Rock, sand, gravel, topsoil.

So we're not too uh the concrete that as uh Commissioner Lockhart has mentioned is perhaps the the most difficult.

Yeah.

Um speak to um what those other steps well, you know what?

We're not even going there tonight, so I won't won't take you there, especially when we've got uh two more items ahead of us.

Um I'm not hearing anything from staff, nor I see anything in the report that's indicating that you don't have everything in order to uh suppress when it comes to sand, gravel, and rock.

Um as far as you can tell you're in line with what has been asked of you by the city.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, obviously me and Gary have had extensive conversations about improvements and all of that, obviously.

I mean that's what I want to hear.

Me and me and Gary have had you bonded with Gary.

Me and Gary bonded really well.

Do I agree with him fully?

No.

Sure.

Does he agree with me fully or probably not?

I'm not sure.

Welcome to city life.

Exactly.

Um I mean, I will express to you guys what I have expressed to Gary.

Um the what is expected of me has not been expected of anybody else in the city.

Um I've sent pictures and everything to him.

Uh the whole for three quarters of a mile is not developed.

It's there's a lot being asked of me.

I'm willing to do it because there's no really no other way around it as of right now.

There's literally not curve and gutter for three-quarters of a mile.

And I'm being asked to do curb and gutter at the end of a street.

So I will say that.

Um I feel like there should be some lenience on that aspect.

But if and Gary has expressed he are being like lenient to an extent, right?

Um I I will say there needs to be some vision on this, is what I should say.

So that being beyond the scope of what we can do, I won't take us down that road.

Okay.

Uh sounds good.

But read a little bit.

Yeah.

Um any other questions for for the mayor.

But if they've got questions for the applicant, I've got one.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, just the timeline for your 30 trees.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna ask.

I could have them done tomorrow if you want them to.

Like, honestly, like if if this I'm I'm a type of person that if I've got to get done, I'll get it done.

So I could have them done 30 trees by next week.

So well really quick, I'm this question is gonna go back to staff.

Uh Gary, the the the DRCs here, are they specific to what needs to be in place for this item, or are we talking about what needs to happen over the long haul for him to be at 100%?

Yeah, this is this would be for the long hauling site plan.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yes, I want to be careful that we're not asking you to do everything that needs no.

And I I feel comfortable.

He'll we have an agreement.

We'll get it done.

Okay.

And he's done everything we've or agreed to do, everything we required.

Okay.

Thank you.

Baby steps to keep the doors open, man.

All right.

Absolutely.

Other questions.

I got one more, sorry.

Yep.

You're giving it.

Um as far as it's residential, like we could come purchase material.

Yep.

Are you gonna have larger companies coming in with their trucks that you could fill and then they take off?

Yes.

Okay, and those are the ones I'd be more concerned about.

Getting the word out as best you can and saying, hey, you this is how we uh do things here.

And that's I mean, obviously, I yeah, I've been in business for 14 years, right?

So I have connections where I can call somebody and say, hey, your driver's driving way too fast down this road, or they didn't take center street, or you get what I'm saying.

Like if they're coming coming to me, I will make sure the second they pull in that yard, they're getting reprimanded for driving too fast or not coming down center street.

And I think we understand too that you don't they're not your employees.

Yes.

What do you really do with them besides make them feel like idiots when they pull in?

I mean there's a lot of those.

So I I'll just say that.

Not in my eye.

Not in the anything else for the applicant.

Okay.

We grilled you a little bit.

That's fine.

I oh sorry, we've got to staff.

Yeah, for staff.

I was expecting it.

So uh we'll let the the public comment and see if there's anything more to the black and white to dig out.

And if there is, we'll bring you back up.

And all right, let you get torch a little bit more.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore.

Um staff.

Yeah, so just to clarify, the conditional use is for rock, sand, gravel, and topsoil storage, but his future use for concrete, he would he have to reapply for that condition as well, or are we granting both today?

I think it's intended for all of it.

Okay, so that he doesn't have to be.

Because there's only one part highlighted in the packet.

So I just was wanting to make sure.

Yeah, that the way this packet reads was that that was just one held off.

And for his sake, if we make a motion, I want to make sure that we're including whatever we should be including.

Um applications are expensive and timely, so if we're gonna do both, let's be sure to do both.

And that's gonna impact what the well, what the motion says in terms of steps.

Yeah, so I just want to make sure we were on the same page before moving forward.

Um I'm just gonna pull up the definition really quick of that rock, sand and gravel, and see if it's all in the middle.

Emily, it's not manufacturing Mr.

Warner.

My apologies.

Come on up.

You're the applicant, so we hear plenty from you.

Yeah, it's we're not manufacturing concrete right now.

Um we're just recycling concrete.

Yeah, so um I'm just trying to make sure that everything is like all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted.

Because if we don't include it and it's not a part of the the one we do include, then you'd be out of compliance if you started using any type of concrete.

Okay, I want to make sure that what you get today is what you need.

Okay.

If that's what the commission decides to do.

I'm just looking out for you.

I I actually appreciate that, so thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

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

Friends, how's it going?

All right.

I don't know the applicant at all.

But I just want to say it's a breath of fresh air to see a Lehigh resident coming in here, business owner, excited to start a business, run a business in Lehigh, and be compliant.

You know who's not compliant?

Is Lehigh City.

Uh you have a property.

You are you are having him mitigate dust.

You're having mitigate sound, all these different things.

Find your own properties, you don't even require that of your own uh trucks and things like that.

So I think it's pretty hypical, hypocritical that the city's requiring this of the gentleman when you yourselves are not doing that.

Kim's been a part of this for two years.

Uh strata networks has been running hundreds of vehicles, no dust mitigation.

Every day I wake up, dust on my vehicles, dust on my house, dust in my vents, cement.

You're concerned about cement.

Guess what?

They do cement there too.

Lots of cement dust everywhere.

And guess what?

We've never had a public hearing.

So this is a problem, and Lehigh City seems out of code.

So if we can get that fixed, that'd be great.

But you should move forward with this applicant.

He's really willing to bend over backwards after you put him out of business to make things right, and so that's a good thing.

Also, Strata Networks hasn't paid any money towards the lease that they signed with City.

The $8,000 a month.

You can ask Tisha, she's the one that ran the grammar request.

Uh $8,000 a month for three years now.

We're going on a quarter million dollars that they owe Lee Guy City.

We should collect that money.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public?

All right.

We'll go ahead and close public hearing.

There's an online comment.

My apologies.

We'll keep it open.

That's right.

Read it.

Um yes, so this is from uh Lorraine Abell.

Uh my name is Lorena Beale.

I'm a property owner, uh resident, directly adjacent and to the west of Johnny Warner's property.

Not able to attend the planning meeting, but wanted to offer input.

I have been in contact and talking to Johnny Warner for a month or so about his plans for his business.

So far, I have a pretty positive feeling about him wanting to operate this business per the zoning laws and conditional use rules.

I've read through the documentation and feedback from the planning commission, and there are a couple of areas I just wanted to reiterate opinions on.

There is a section that states that buffering requirements can be adjusted if the adjacent A5 property owners agree to this in writing.

Um we will not agree to any reduced requirements for buffering, landscaping, or fencing for this business.

However, I understand this, if I understand this correctly, 30 trees seems a little excessive.

Johnny is aware of this.

We've talked quite a bit about it.

I have not gotten the impression from him that he wants to reduce what is required for buffering along our property line.

I don't necessarily agree with the curve and gutter out front just because there are no no storm drains.

So I know there has to be another way for the water to funnel away from adjacent property.

But it sounds like from the recommendations in this document that this will be addressed, and this item is pretty much non-negotiable.

I don't see anything mentioned in the documentation about groundwater contamination for my past experience with the use of this property.

I do believe there was some of this that went on.

However, I have also talked to Johnny about this, and I think that he is in agreement and will do what he can to minimize this as well, even if it isn't part of the requirements.

Also, our culinary well is slightly uphill and to the north of most of the operations, so I don't believe that will be an issue.

I guess since that's not listed on the agenda, that's not really not a topic to address.

But I just wanted you guys to know that I have discussed this with Mr.

Warner.

My other big area of concern is dust mitigation, and this is uh this was a big concern in the past.

I've also discussed this quite a bit with Johnny, and I feel like he understands and wants to be sure that this is handled the way it should be.

It sounds like from the paperwork there's a little bit of a water issue.

Hopefully, the city can work with Mr.

Warner to resolve this since the water is a key factor in dust control.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.

Okay, very good.

I was wondering if we were gonna hear from the neighbor.

Yep.

Fantastic.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close public hearing and uh bring it back to the commission.

Yes.

So we do list concrete manufacture, which is the actual production of concrete.

So I would say that's a separate use from what he's doing.

I think the closest use that we have.

It doesn't we don't have a specific use for concrete recycling.

So I think it would just fall under that sand and gravel.

Um let me pull that one up and I can read it.

Um, gravel, and topsoil storage and distribution, a facility that stores and sells rock, sand, gravel, and topsoil, which I guess concrete is really an aggregate of some of that, and he's gonna be crushing it, recycling it back into somewhat of the form of rock and sand and gravel.

So it says this use includes all associated screening, transportation, and distribution infrastructure, but does not include mining.

So really that's like the heaviest dirt rock that's that I would say covers anything similar to it because we don't have a specific use.

So if we if it's not specifically use of uh listed, we try to determine which one's the closest.

So I would say if we approve this conditional use, it would cover his concrete recycling.

Okay.

Maybe we should be very clear about that in the motion.

I would just hate for someone to challenge the conditional use and and come in and argue concrete manufacturing, right?

So just trying to make sure that because I I can see an opening there for someone to make the same broad stroke argument on that.

So would you recommend we make it clear that this is not concrete manufacturing, and if he does want to move into that same business, he would have to come back for another conditional use?

Is that essentially what we're saying here?

Something separate?

I would like to call the applicant back up first to just get any more light and wisdom that there might be to get on the matter.

Mr.

Warner.

You want to get your steps.

Good.

Um with how much mobility everything has nowadays.

Concrete black batch plants have a huge mobility, could benefit pioneer crossing could benefit the freeway, could benefit a lot of surrounding projects if they were to be able to use that as a mobile batch plant.

Okay, if that makes sense.

And you are your zoned for that.

Your zone for I mean technically is.

I mean, I'm not saying it's going to happen now.

Now's the time to be direct.

But I will say you would like that option.

I would like that option if you know WWE Clyde came to me and said, hey, we want to set up a mobile batch plant, can we?

It's zone.

I can say yeah.

That's perfect, right?

If it was a permitted use, you wouldn't even have to deal with us.

Yeah, because it's conditional, you have to come before the commission.

And so there's not really anything under any zoning or as far as I know that that falls under.

So that would be something that if it is conditional, I would if you guys are willing, I'd love for that.

So are we allowed to do that?

Because that's not what was requested.

Yeah.

Let me see how we amend is that.

I mean, if it's a big if it's a big go leave it out.

Sure, and you could always apply for it again, but yes.

Ideally, ideally I'd like to come once and I I would say the way we've listed it on the agenda that that it's really limited to just that one use.

So unfortunately, yeah, you it would mean you need to come back, maybe present whatever new information specific to the concrete manufacturing, but silver lining is that simplifies the motion a little bit here this evening.

But the reason for that is public notice, right?

So what if what if a a neighbor or 15 saw concrete manufacturing and luckily I only have one neighbor within three quarters of the year?

But I guess any resident who has to be.

She may have had a different comment.

For sure.

Right.

For sure.

Yeah.

So I appreciate being LC from that comment.

Clearly.

Yes.

You're doing everything you can, man.

It also helps you understand what you can and cannot do.

Yes.

I appreciate it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um Gary.

Well.

I like to let you guys drive.

But uh my my initial thought would really be uh to uh effectively have check-off points with you in terms of opening the next phase.

So he's he's good to go, is the impression I get on rock sand gravel, topsoil, and then as other conditions right that so we permit it all tonight, but then as the other conditions are met.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Uh I think so if I understand your question, yeah.

He still needs to come back through DRC one last final time to clear up these things.

Right.

There's still um I mean he's agreed to put in the Kerb and gutter and sidewalk at an appropriate time.

I think he's agreed to put in the sums to address that issue that the neighbor has about the because there isn't storm drains in the area.

So I think we've run through all those issues, and he needs does need to come back to DRC one more time and we'll clear up all those last little final dot the i's and cross the t's.

I Barry, can do either of you care to uh not looking to win over Mr.

Warner on the point, but state w what gives with the curbing, so that that makes a little more sense.

Uh people.

Yeah, that's one of the requirements that the city has is when any properties developed or land use changes or something, we require the curb and gutter and sidewalk to be or the roadway to be on that side of the road anyway, completed.

Umny's contention is that there's many other light industrial places that haven't done that, and I can't speak to those.

I wasn't part of when they went in.

Um he does have some good points.

But um, but as far as this one goes, and as far as we can control now that are not grandfathered.

Right, yeah.

And so we have an agreement with him, and he will put those in.

So if that answers your question.

I think it does.

Um other questions, discussion, or entertain a motion.

For the record, I appreciate a applicant, a resident of the city as well, or at least a constituent here in the city that has a business here.

I don't know that you live here, but if you do, great.

Um but I do appreciate you pointing out inconsistencies.

You know, we do want to be consistent.

If we haven't been consistent in the past, that doesn't necessarily mean we don't want to try to be consistent to our code and hold us to a higher standard.

I appreciate Casey Glade's comment as well, right?

If there are inconsistencies, I love that the residents point them out.

Uh you have 100% open ears for me that I I love to hold the city accountable to our own code.

And I do know historically we haven't been 100%, right?

But I love the call out.

And let's do a better job as a city as well.

That's it.

Very good.

Yes.

If you would allow, I I have maybe a partial response to the strata issue that came up during the public comment.

Um it's off topic, but it was addressed.

So go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

Again, along that same vein that you were just saying the inconsistent.

They did Strata Networks has purchased property on West Main Street.

Uh I think they purchased it a several months ago, maybe even up to a year ago.

They just dedicated their water.

So there, so it is been slow, but they've got property now secured.

It's been rezoned properly.

The I just got the water dedication last week.

So just maybe an update that there are things happening to have strata have their own property and operate under compliance.

So in a different location.

I know you're not from the finance department, but can you speak?

Were those payments made or no?

Yeah, that I I have no information on.

I'm not part of that.

That makes sense.

All right.

To the item at hand.

I'll make a motion on item 3.4 public hearing consideration of Johnny Warner's request for approval of a conditional use for Warner Transport and Dirt Stores located at 7491 West, 8179 North.

I move that we approve the conditional use request.

Um that includes the storage of rocks and gravel and topsoil in this light industrial zone as it is permitted as a conditional use in our table of uses.

We'll include the DRC all DRC comments and also the findings that the proposed use of the proposed location uh will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City's general plan and the purposes of this code, that the property on which the use building or other structure is 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.

Will you entertain discussion to the motion?

Yes.

Will you add to the motion that this conditional use includes concrete recycling, but not any concrete manufacturing?

Um that if the applicant would like to do concrete manufacturing, they'd be required to make a notice, apply, notice the public, and come back before the planning commission.

So amended.

I'll second that motion.

Okay.

Motion asked second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr.

Warner, congratulations, sir.

All right.

Item 3.5.

Item 3.5 is public hearing and recommendation of Perry Development's request for review of the Bull River Road General Plan amendment on 1.48 acres located at approximately 400 west Bull River Road, changing the land use designation from low density residential to high density residential.

The low density residential designation would allow for a maximum of three and a half units an acre for a maximum of four units total.

Um sorry, four homes total.

The proposed high density residential designation would allow for a total of 17 units.

There were comments from the DRC, but they were informational for the applicant should the general plan amendment be passed.

This is a legislative item.

The planning commission will provide either a positive or negative recommendation to the city council.

The city council will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not this general plan amendment is approved.

This is a public hearing item.

There were four online comments for this.

And I can read those during the public comment period.

But with that, I turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

Would you like to speak to the item?

Please state your name and time is yours.

Good evening, uh Commission Chair Jackson and fellow commission members.

My name is Lindsay Neve.

I'm with Perry Holmes.

And um Perry Home submitted the application that's in front of you this evening.

Um as represented in our application that we filed, uh there are several factors that were taken into consideration as we looked over this.

First and foremost, the thing that I did look through is the historical context on the applications that have been filed with the city for this particular piece.

Going all the way back to the Eagle Ridge subdivision, the commercial applications that have been filed, the commercial development that has occurred immediately adjacent to it, and just context in general.

The largest components of discussion that seemed to come from all of those minutes and all those meetings were impact on the adjacent neighborhood and their view of the corridor and to preserve that.

Having said that, we did consider this in looking at the homes, and as mentioned in the staff report, it's four units, including ADUs, which make it up to approximately eight units that would be allowed, and there is the existing zoning category.

In those situations, the corridor would not be preserved.

Um there's pedestrian access that the uh council or excuse me that staff has mentioned would be required as part of the development.

And so I believe that what we've presented in front of you right now and the additional efforts that I made.

I sent out a meeting, a neighborhood meeting request, and I understand that there's a number of residents here that are concerned, and I appreciate their concern.

I did send out a request for a neighborhood meeting to sit and listen and discuss the concerns that they had.

I held that last Thursday.

Six um six of those residences appeared, and I did send that out to I think it was about 20 to 32 residences that were in the media area that popped up.

Six residents showed up to communicate their concerns.

In those concerns, the main priority was traffic, and I communicated that in the development we were proposing, we would not propose any vehicular access tying into the community, that staff had recommended a pedestrian tie-in, but that we would support them not even having pedestrian access.

There was concern over people parking in the cul-de-sac and then using the trail access to get across.

So again, this provides an opportunity for us to consider cutting off all that access, putting up that protection there for the neighborhood.

Um there was concern about the wall and fencing and the structural items that are tied to the adjacent and how that impacts the neighbors.

Um again, we're more than willing to take a look at that, make sure that that ties in nicely, and that that's not a continued issue moving forward.

I'm not sure if you can pull up the um elevation exhibit that we had provided as part of our application.

This is also what was presented at the neighborhood meeting and discussed with the neighbors to give them context of what their view would be.

I know there's been a number of concerns again through past historical meetings on what exactly would be built.

And I'm comfortable if there's any consideration to be stipulated to trees, landscaping, and anything else that would soften it.

But this would be the view if we were to move forward with the town owned concept that we are proposing.

Can you pull up the comparison on the residential homes?

And this is a comparison of what they would see relative to residents being built and allowed under code compared to what we are proposing.

Um the other they also represented the view was concerned.

I'm I'm happy to include additional landscaping.

Um there was a comment of adding frosted windows.

I'm happy to take that up as if we're able to move through the process on additional stipulations again that would be sensitive to the view of the neighbor and protecting the existing neighborhood.

Um the density because of the category that we're doing, it does allow 17.

I'm we can uh in hearing the concerns from the neighbors.

I'm willing to even consider submitting a plan with a revision to eliminate two more that are immediately adjacent to reduce it down to 12, give them a larger buffer area, and um this second concern that was tied to the density was parking, right?

The concern for parking and additional overflow.

We would use that additional area in eliminating those units to provide additional parking and additional landscape area for the community, which was also expressed by those individuals that attended the neighborhood meeting.

Having said that, I know that these pieces are hard, especially in existing neighborhoods.

I think that the general plan does provide for and allow for affordable housing.

This does fit in that category.

It would be for home ownership, not for rental, um, not build for rent or anything else.

It's specifically for ownership, and we're willing to stipulate for that.

It does need providing that mixed variation, providing additional and varied housing products for the neighborhood.

And again, I think that it does provide for when applied right and when built right, addresses infill parcels that kind of remain in the community.

So I will leave it at that.

I understand there are a number of neighbors I wish they would have attended.

I did provide all my contact information for anybody to reach out with any questions or voice any concerns, but again, it was limited to those six individuals.

There was two follow-up emails that I had with some additional information on the structure and concerns that were voiced when the uh storage facility was moving forward, but outside of that, no one reached out to communicate anything.

Please, how are you planning to restrict the owner occupancy?

Um I know that there's been a couple of stipulations and just requirements that have been placed in other communities for home ownership, whether it's for a specific period, but outside of that, I'm not.

I mean, we can require that up front, but what turns after that is difficult.

Not that we recommend them, but uh whole training.

No, that is an option.

Um HOA It would be under an H way, so again I'm willing to consider any additional items that would help implement that.

It is our it is our intent to do it for homeownership.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

Take a seat for the moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh let's hold off on the online comments.

We'll we'll get the in-person first.

Um this is a public hearing.

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

Now's the time.

Hi, my name is Alan Alan Hawley.

I live in 425 West 34 or 3466 north in that cul-de-sac, just south of this.

Um we didn't candidly, we didn't intend the the Perry Homes thing, because honestly, I don't trust them.

Um we built with Perry Homes, and so that kind of that's all I'm gonna say.

Um so that that picture right there, you can kind of see that those that those homes are, I think that's the Harmony version or uh the full floor plan is obviously scaled up, um, significantly higher, or significantly bigger than the townhomes.

And the town homes are gonna be that are gonna be closest to the road are gonna be much higher.

It doesn't really show that.

So obviously it's gonna be higher, right?

Like if you're gonna fit that many townhomes in that space, like the townhomes at the very top are probably going to be not too far off from a single family home.

And if they wanted to be benevolent, which I I don't think they will, um they could build uh ramblers up there and they could preserve our view of the SR92, which I don't really care about at all.

Like it um so there's no view that's being restricted other than the highway, which again I don't care about.

There's there's just a few different points I'd like to point out.

Um why this should be denied, and I would strongly urge the the committee to deny this, is the first of all it's the inconsistency, inconsistency, excuse me, with uh the zoning code and with the development code.

So the code 37.030 requires a new single family development maintained compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods.

Obviously, this to me this does not, allowing a high density townhouse cluster in a cul-de-sac.

So this this whole parcel borders a cul-de-sac.

Um there's 20 23 feet, I think 23 and a half feet of of access from this parcel directly to our cul-de-sac.

So I and I don't know if I have to kind of repeat the absurdity of the statement, but you're they're asking to put a high density neighborhood into a cul-de-sact that's surrounded by low low density.

I I and anyway.

So just so first and foremost, it just doesn't it's totally inconsistent with uh the zone like the the development code.

Um spot zoning of this nature, creating an isolated pocket of high density within uniformly low density is kind of to me is obvious density encroachment.

Like I don't I it it doesn't make sense to me.

Number two, incompatibility with established neighborhood character, kind of going with number one.

All of these homes here are valued, I mean probably average about a million bucks.

Um and so you're gonna put town homes, they're not even cottages.

We have cottages at the south end of 425 across 3200 north.

They're town homes, um, obviously gonna be valued at much uh much lower value, which is totally inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Um and what's also been has been said, uh townhomes often introduce higher turnover rates and rental occupancy, which alters the neighborhood stability and cohesion.

So you can't, unless you yeah, unless you have some kind of specific deed that prohibits someone from selling for I don't know, some extended period of time.

I don't know.

Like obviously those those will turn into rentals pretty quickly.

Um start contrast and housing type, uh scale and tenure would eliminate would undermine the light kind of compatibility standard that underpins the whole zoning code.

Um access and circulation deficiencies, um code 37.030 also states that it neighbors should neighborhoods should be designed for safe circulation.

The obviously people are gonna park in the cul-de-sac.

Our neighborhood, our neighbor has no fence.

So even if you put a fence there and close off everything, they're still gonna walk around the fence.

And there is zero parking on Bull River.

I don't know if you guys have been to the Bull River, but it's like more like a country road instead of like a a residential road.

It's it's probably maybe 75% the thickness of 425 West or the width.

It's it's and it's also kind of a disaster.

Um very poorly maintained.

So there's there's yeah, the code requires safe and efficient ingress, egress for higher density developments.

Um there's not a lot of parking, there's there's not a lot of um there's gonna be increased traffic in that in that area.

Required pedestrian pathway.

So the the the I guess the agenda said, or maybe the plan said that the pedestrian there's gonna be a required pedestrian pathway from our cul-de-sac to Bull River.

Um, which again would transform the cul-de-sac into a parking lot.

Um parking deficiencies kind of already touched on that.

Um we don't want our our cul-de-sac to become a parking lot.

I don't know how they can of how they can stop that.

Um also Bull River, there's there's virtually so once that goes in, there's no parking on the river.

Except for on the other side in the dirt.

And like there's about 10 homes that face Bull River from 425 425 West all the way to 1200 West that have to struggle with parking, and those are low density homes.

Um furthermore, the what we lovingly uh refer to in our neighborhood as the abomination, which is the um which is the uh mini storage that's going in right now, has very limited parking.

There's almost no parking there.

So putting in high density right there compounds the issue of having no parking at the mini storage and then having up to 17 homes.

And once it's rezoned, I don't know why they would do anything but other than build 17 homes.

Um or town homes.

Anyway, parking deficiencies, public safety safety concerns.

So there's a lot of children that play in our cul-de-sac down the street.

There's a lot of children that access Murdoch Trail that cross the street, adults do, pets.

Um having that much more traffic in that area just doesn't make any sense.

Um we're already already uh again from the mini storage, we're already gonna incur additional traffic in this low density environment.

Why we why would we want to compound that with a high density uh high density uh development?

Um we obviously want to keep our kids safe.

In my in that cul-de-sac, we do have my neighborhoods, kids are out there every day on scooters, bikes, etc.

etc.

Um lastly, I just want to say there there is literally, in my view, of course, there is literally zero public benefit to have this happen, have this rezoning happen.

Um per the zoning code, um it must advance the neighborhood quality, aesthetics, and cohesion to be valid per the code.

This proposal provides no such benefit whatsoever to the existing neighborhood.

It's neither the city's nor our responsibility to maximize Perry Homes' revenue and profits.

Um they can build four homes.

They could have built four homes for the last 10 years.

They've owned this property for a decade or two.

Um and they've decided not to.

They've decided to keep pushing for commercial or high density or whatever it is, and we have to come down here every few years and hide them off.

And it's very uncomfortable.

So they can build four homes, they'll make a more than reasonable amount of profit from four homes.

The only beneficiaries would be parry homes.

And it would be at the expense of the character, livability, safety, and our property values of our neighborhood, especially our cul-de-sac, which would turn into a circus.

And which, in my opinion, is not sufficient sufficient justification to override the general plan, the development code, the rights of established homeowners, effectively, this would be just a wealth transfer from Perry from our neighborhood uh to Perry Homes for no benefit.

And that's all I have to say.

Do you have any questions or just uh to clarify uh the uh the the way that Roberts rules the way that these things function?

We can't ask you questions.

We can the applicate.

But thank you very much uh for your comments.

Mr.

Gary.

Please state your name.

Hello, Gary, but glad you remember me.

I didn't come here to speak about this, but um I was I just heard a couple things the applicant said and just wanted to make a couple comments.

I can't, I I'm not here to like say do it or don't do it.

Just want to make a couple of comments to you and let everyone else here too.

Um one thing that the applicant talked about was their concerns about um parking in the cul-de-sac, and that just restricting like don't build more of the homes or build fewer of the homes to build more on-site parking, like to address some of that issue.

There are those are really clumsy ways of dealing with parking issues.

Uh parking benefit districts, for example, really good way.

I've read about 1,300 pages of two different books about parking.

I'm fairly well versed about it.

Um like well, the big thing that got me was talking about restricting access, not having a pedestrian connection as a way to try to address a parking issue.

That really got to me.

That's like limiting access in that way really severely reduces the ability of people to get around.

And I'm all for allowing everyone to be able to walk around as freely as they want, especially children, since they don't really have a good alternative.

And anyway, removing access like that is just really clumsy.

So please don't restrict access just for the sake of parking.

If you need to address parking, address parking.

Um another thing with the traffic concerns.

Um the more parking you build, the more traffic you get.

So you could build a reduced number of homes and then build more parking spots.

You're gonna wind up with more traffic.

Increased number of homes.

And like access to transit really matters here.

Access to driving alternatives really matters here.

Um just knowing that the thing that drives traffic is parking.

And that's not to say we shouldn't have any parking.

We do need some parking.

Uh but like I could go on about parking for a long time.

Anyway, those are all the comments I really wanted to make about that.

I just hope that I I think there are a lot of misconceptions and wanted to clear up a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council.

My name is Matt Sandgren, and I live right across the street from Allen and several others here.

I'm on the west corner there of the cul-de-sac, my my corner touches where this new development is proposed.

I'm just voicing the same uh essentially that that Alan talked about, all the same concerns.

It is quite a conundrum.

And I I attended the neighborhood meeting, which I was appreciative of if nothing else, but just to know about it and be able to have a voice.

Um it is a conundrum just because that access to the trail right there has been huge for everyone it uh in those streets.

Um and if you were to fully close it off, then that would restrict that amenity that those neighborhood members have had for a long time.

And if you choose not to and put a walkway to continue it, there is no doubt that that cars are gonna be parked in that in that cul-de-sac and people would just go right through.

So other than that, just voicing sane concerns and thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council, Jeff Burgess.

I live in the cul-de-sac as well, a few houses down.

And um just want to state, you know, my number one concern is uh from changing it to high density is is traffic and safety with whether it's 12 or 17 town homes, that's 30 plus cars in an already fully developed area.

Um and a lot of us moved into the area and invested into the neighborhood and put down routes, knowing the zoning and knowing what type of neighborhood and what type of traffic patterns there would be.

So you know, I can echo that yes, there are kids and children playing in the cul-de-sac a lot as all cul-de-sacs have, and this would drastically change that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Dave McAllister, I live directly adjacent to the property that they're trying to change the zoning on.

Um I want to echo what they m my neighbors said.

Um the hard part for me is that Ferry Homes built this development.

They built our entire subdivision.

At that time, they could have developed this and made this something part of the homes, part of whatever that could have been done.

The infrastructure could have been put in, uh a pathway could have been put in, but 30 years, almost 30 years of them owning this property, they decided to do nothing.

And now they're gonna claim that well, we can't build homes that are a million dollars because now we've got a storage unit next to it.

That's just like me buying a piece of property investing, and then something happens to it.

So build your million dollar homes.

I live directly next to it.

I'll take the bad view of the four homes if it's the bad view they're saying with walk-out basements and be happy with my four neighbors, but not 14.

So thank you.

Um I'm Melissa McAllister.

Dave's my husband, so I live right there.

I also when we bought that home, Perry Homes says you have nothing to worry about, it'll either be a park, it'll be something simple.

That you know, selling that they weren't gonna turn around and make it into high density.

So I didn't buy a home to we've already had to deal with the storage unit that is very unfair to the neighborhood, and that we did not get an option to come to a meeting like this when they turned it into this three-story building due to the city.

Um also my home value.

I I invested in this, and it will decrease my home value a lot to put that in.

The storage units already decreasing everyone's home value because you're looking at it.

And people have asked to build on that.

They've tried to contact Perry Homes.

People are like, why won't they sell it to anybody?

Why won't they let us build on it?

So they can't say that people don't want to live there because we've had people ask us multiple times over the years because people thought we owned it.

And so Perry Homes has never had to put a park in.

They've never had to add value to any of the neighborhoods up there.

They have communities all over up there.

I don't know if they just build them small enough so they don't have to put a park in.

Like Ivory Homes has parks everywhere because they've built this.

Perry Homes has never never had to do that anywhere up there that I that I'm aware of.

And so to be told that they may turn that into a park just to sell us a home and pay more to be in the end of a cul-de-sac, and then to I feel it's very deceiving from them just to have their pockets to put in more homes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I live on 3318 north, 425 West.

So on that street, uh not quite in the cul-de-sac, a little bit further south.

But uh as been has been said uh previously, that road is is already has you know significant traffic in it.

Um that path is used currently by residents to go up to um up to the walkway up there across Bull River.

But uh in our discussion with with the builder, we did indicate that we would prefer that access be blocked off by fence uh to prevent people from parking in the cul-de-sac, increasing traffic on that street, and then walking up to the high density housing.

So um if that's doable, great.

Um I'm not opposed to to uh well I say I would I would oppose the high density housing if that walkway is a requirement.

And I do have a question regarding uh what's in the code for uh what's called pedestrian connectivity standards in uh chapter 37.040, section F.1, uh, whether or not regardless of the uh the low density or high density, whether or not that would be enforced and require a walkway between the end of the cul-de-sac and the Bull River Road.

So it if that's the case, and the residents said we'd rather have that blocked off and walk over to 500 west and go up to the path than to have access through through the end of the cul-de-sac because it will become a parking lot.

So that's that's basically my comment.

I don't know if there's an addendum that can be made on the rezoning to accommodate that, but that would be my concern.

Thank you.

But we currently, as you can tell, that piece of land my kids use as a bike park.

That's what we call it.

It's got all the little trails and everything.

And you know, a park would be nice.

They could turn it into an actual skate park or something that the kids could utilize.

And also maybe they could look down behind the Chevron and Jimmy John's down there on Bull River Road.

They just demolished uh car wash right there.

There's some high density homes right there.

You could right across the case.

I gotta keep sorry.

This is how we keep fistfies from breaking out.

It's why we don't answer the case.

I just want to win for I was talking about Perry homes.

Sure.

You know, there's some high density further down Bull River, and they just cleared a lot.

Go ahead and take that one.

And also, if you haven't driven Bull River Road, you should try it because already those high density houses down there, they park on both sides of that road.

And that's what's gonna happen.

Thank you.

Hi.

Jamie Anderson, I live at uh 3437 or in the picture of the bottom left of the cul-de-sac there.

Um want to second what was said uh about this being an island of high density amongst low density, whereas there is high density across the other side of the freeway.

There's high density on the other side of the power lines to the east.

Um, and it's not the traditional American sense of a cul-de-sac to have a great big cutout in the corner of it with a fence and uh tall buildings.

So there um we had a similar situation to this when we lived in Pleasant Grove some years ago uh with a different builder, and that's exactly what they did.

They had a piece of property, had difficulty to sell.

They donated it to the city, they got the tax write-off, so they were able to get the benefit for their side, and then both parties were able to benefit necessarily.

So again, we believe there are other options to this, uh, especially if they've taken this long.

But uh we would uh both for by the way, what Jeff didn't say he has a new little kid, and we have a number of new little kids in the cul-de-sac, so we just want to protect them from the traffic and such.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Scott Collins.

Um, we actually live in the uh the cul-de-sac to the east of this cul-de-sac.

Um, and I also want to um express my concern for this project and uh would urge a denial of the request.

Um to address um our neighborhood um after these letters were sent out um to us.

Um we have a neighborhood chat that we get on, and there is plenty of concern.

Um, you know, we a lot of us couldn't attend the meeting at the time that they had scheduled it when we heard about it like two days later.

Um, but there's plenty of concern.

Um I'm confident that the majority of this neighborhood, not just that street, but my my cul-de-sac and the other adjacent, and we could get 50 signatures easy um in opposition to this.

So there's big concern just to address that, um, even though we didn't attend the meeting.

Um my main concern is uh safety on Bull River Road as has been expressed.

Um that road, I don't even know if there's a code for how much traffic you can have on there when you need to expand it.

Um but I don't know if Lehigh City is willing to expand Bull River Road to accommodate um all this if this does go through.

Um but that would be a request of mine um if that were the case.

Um anyway, um I I all the points that Alan had pointed out, I think summarizes it really well.

Um safety of my kids uh going across this road.

Um we all use it, not just that cul-de-sac, but all the others.

That is our main access to the uh uh the trail there, and it's used heavily by the whole neighborhood.

Um and I'm afraid that uh the safety of that road with more uh traffic than already is there is gonna continue to be uh an issue for us.

Um neighborhood has tons of kids.

Um and uh that's just the makeup of it.

Um a lot of promises are made by Perry.

I echo the same thing, not very consistent in their messaging to us when we moved in uh eight years ago when this was all being developed.

So um and then one other thing is drainage issues.

Um there has been someone that brought that up that this could possibly because of the elevation of this with all that increased concrete could cause drainage issues to these homes that are right beneath it to the south.

So I just want to throw that out there as well.

Um and then one last point is in the past um they've tried to turn this into commercial, and for a lot of these similar reasons, um the city council has denied it uh in the past too.

So I just wanted to throw that out there as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public.

Hello, my name is Coran Collins, and Scott's my husband.

Um and so we live in the cul-de-sac right next to uh the one that we're talking about, and so we I also want to echo a lot of what my neighbors said as far as being mistrusting of Perry Homes and what we were told when we built our house eight years ago.

We have a beautiful neighborhood, it's very tight-knit.

We would love some new neighbors on that land, four houses, that's great.

I think saying that the view would be blocked.

I mean, we have bigger fish to fry than like the view.

We are focused on safety for our kids.

That is number one thing.

Bull River, if you've been on that road, it is barely a two-lane road.

A lot of kids come down from viewpoint, they're coming from Skywards, they're coming from every school.

Our schools are already very packed.

We live two minute drive to viewpoint, and our kids aren't even supposed to go to that school.

So putting high density housing make it doesn't make any sense to our community or to Lehigh City.

And if if it was just to make Perry money, I would just urge you guys to consider that we live there, and we are all long-term homeowners there.

Um there since they built their house.

And as I said, we love some neighbors there.

Um it is not a big plot of land, if you have seen it.

We do use it, we love it.

But obviously, we understand that there's business to be, you know, money to be made, whatever.

Building houses, that is great.

And there is a need for those houses.

Obviously, all of us know people who would love to live in the neighborhood.

It's a great neighborhood, it's a great community in Lehigh, but it's a safety risk to all of our children, to all the kids coming down who cross that road regularly from viewpoint, um, from Skyridge, from Eagle Crest, from all of the schools.

And as a lot of people did say, it it is crazy if you look at it because it's a cul-de-sac.

It's like building an apartment complex at the end of a cul-de-sac.

It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't benefit anybody in this situation except for Perry Homes.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public?

Hey guys, Kath Glade.

I'm not uh resident where they live at all, obviously.

I live somewhere far different.

But maybe it'll be helpful just to hear from somebody else from another part of the city.

You know, this is the type of development that just enrages residents, right?

You're the you just have to use a little common sense to look at this and say, hey, look, that is a low density development all around it.

There's it's totally incompatible with surrounding zones.

It's totally non-congruent with the zoning plan.

And then all of a sudden you're gonna drop high density right next to low density.

Where's the where's the buffer zone that you're supposed to have?

I mean, this is ridiculous.

You guys can see this yourselves.

You'd have to tie up every common bit of sense that you have in your brains and like store it away, throw it away to to pass this through.

This isn't compatible, it's not okay.

We shouldn't be doing these types of things in Lehigh City.

And I'm not even here for this.

I'm here for the communist agenda that comes up next.

The worst thing that you could ever do in Lehigh is coming up next.

So everybody from the public, I hope you stay for that, because it's 100 times worse than how bad this is.

Mr.

Glade, if we could please just keep it on.

Oh, you're welcome to keep speaking.

I'm doing this because this is the item.

Let's speak to this item.

Just hope everyone stays.

That's all.

Very good.

Because it's really important.

Thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else from the public.

So um I know I'm kind of young, so that looks weird, but you're a citizen, you have a right.

Please speak.

I'm in that neighborhood too.

And your name, ma'am.

Callin Lenninger.

But like once everyone's moved in after like already being bought, it's really just not fair to change the density.

And like I go on rents all the time up to that trail.

There's like it's known as it's gonna sound silly, but it's known as bulwark for highway to like a bunch of kids at Skyridge.

Because there's no like speed regulation.

And unless there's like a cop on the road at all times, it really just won't be safe with like kids crossing and extra families being added and parking.

It's just like a huge safety hazard, I feel.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else are in the public?

For online comments.

Should it be summarized or what do you think?

Um just read them.

Yeah.

Let's do it.

Um so the first is from Mark Stillings.

Uh, why do we allow developers to buy properties zoned for one purpose, who then petition to get it changed for a different purpose to maximize their profits at the expense of existing landowners who purchase their properties with the current zoning in mind.

This isn't fair, and the city should stop allowing this to happen.

Um, from a Scott MT.

I live in this neighborhood and I'm opposed to this rezoning request.

This changes the makeup of our neighborhood and introduces safety concerns to our neighborhood.

It also adds more traffic to Bull River, which is already crowded, and we'll certainly add parked cars to the side of the roads, making it even more unsafe.

If this is uh if this is rezoned, then there will be petitions to widen Bull River Road to accommodate.

We are also concerned if it's increased foot traffic to our neighborhood that this additional units will bring.

Our neighborhood is constantly having to defend itself.

The builders have had eight years to develop this land and sell homes.

The burden should not be on its residents now to defend the original zoning.

This land should not be rezoned and should stay as the original intent of this neighborhood.

Please help us preserve what we have.

And then from Lane and Leanne Simmons.

Um we own a home along 425 West in the neighborhood that will be affected by changing the land use designation from LDR to HDR.

We oppose this change and are greatly concerned by the following.

Increased traffic from additional housing.

Bull River is a small, minimally maintained realm that is not designed to handle the increase in traffic that Perry's development would introduce.

Parking concerns from additional housing.

Perry's homes do not include any type of visitor parking space, so it is inevitable that all the spillover parking would occur along Bull River Road and in the cul-de-sac at the end of 425 West.

This is a serious safety hazard as Bull River Road is simply not designed to accommodate this, and neither is the cul-de-sac.

Changing the land use designation from LDR to HDR would seriously and negatively impact our neighborhood, and it is and is an extreme measure.

If Perry Home scales back what its proposed town home development to include any to include ample visitor parking spaces, wider streets to accommodate street parking, and a fence to completely close off our neighborhood access to the townhomes from the cul de sac.

This project may be accessible or acceptable.

And then last one from Jared Peterson.

I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed general plan amendment.

The arguments of maintaining view corridors and preserving the character of the area can easily be achieved by maintaining the LDR designation.

Also, store also, storage units are one of the least invasive types of commercial use with limited access to tenants.

And typically they have a time frame during the day that can be accessed.

Creating balanced land use and a variety of housing needs can be done by following the existing general plan and not creating additional density that does not fit the existing neighborhood.

And I doubt the proposed town home units will fall into any sort of attainable or affordable housing designation.

That's it.

Very good.

All right.

Um Lindsay.

If you'd like to use the oh, yes, forgive me.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

Um if there are any the comments that you'd like to speak to, and of course we will then have some questions and thoughts are as well.

Um first and foremost, I wanted to be clear on access.

Um I know it's a little bit hard to see in the concept button we had, but there was no vehicular access to the cul-de-sac, so there would be no traffic.

I'm not sure what the blue lines are, those weren't on our map.

Um, but um there's no vehicular access that would be coming through that cul de sac.

Um, as it relates to the elevations, those were not trying to deceive anybody.

Um, those are the home home plans, and if they sit at grade with the road, those are the actual visuals.

And um I've heard it's it's difficult, right?

I hear from some neighbors that and I looked through all the minutes and the and the big position was preserving what their view was from that neighborhood.

And my attempt truly was what can we do that's a softening of the neighborhood in the town home and the grading that would be required.

We are able to have the flexibility to have those sit at a level that would put those so I I apologize for any um comments from the community where we're trying to deceive.

That's not the intent I've worked with our engineering company in detail to specifically look at this piece.

Um, and that was in no of in no way trying to deceive anything with the community.

Um as for uh the comments in what Paris represent in the past, I can't.

I wasn't with Perry at that time, so I apologize.

I can't speak to anything in a it is hurtful to hear as a company, right?

The concern and everything that's there.

So I can't particularly speak to that because I wasn't there.

Um but I can speak to what I'm presenting in front of you and what I'm hoping that we can try and build in for the community.

Um I know that it's not necessarily viewed as a benefit for the immediately adjacent community, but I do think that there is an agenda for the entire state to provide for a varied housing product type.

Um it's difficult, it it truly is, especially when you're in neighborhoods and there's a well, we thought this would be here, and um, so I uh Perry does not approach this lightly in asking for this.

We've tried to do what we can to again make something that we think would be nice.

We have many communities such as this, that there's families just as the ones that live next, you know, adjacent to and in the cul-de-sac that enjoy and live in these communities.

So the second thing is there are a number of things and concerns that the residents have brought up as it relates to the general plan.

There are several also sections of the general plan where this does specifically comply with the general plan and its strategies for providing stronger communities by providing varied housing types and integration of those housing types, and um specifically in the residential development land use section of the code that does call for strategy one, an integrating range of housing types and features, creating programs that allow for additional housing types and affordable housing types, um, which also then leads to cohesion of communities.

So I do think that that's a key component.

Um the other thing that I would mention is that it is a piece, and while there are additional residential homes that are immediately to the west as you transition to commercial uses, it is standard land use planning that that is an appropriate transition when it's applied right and as you're transitioning to commercial type uses, industrial type uses.

Um we do have residential on two sides, but on the other two sides, we've got a freeway and we've got commercial.

So I do think that those are components to be considered.

Um I'm having to answer any questions.

Please.

Uh why did this not get developed um eight years ago with the rest of it?

I tried to review as much as I can again without going into like the files that I had.

What I could see is that Perry purchased this and it was already subdivided in this format.

So I don't think it was specifically Perry that chose to hold it out.

They acquired it already subdivided in this manner.

So as for the decisions on when it was made not to amend it to add it, I I can't speak to directly.

And when did Perry acquire the property?

I can't tell you that off the top of my head.

I'm not prepared to answer that.

Okay.

Um do you know about a promise of a park?

That was and uh we're again asking past your tenure of Perry.

I can't speak to that.

I didn't again look through all of our historical files.

What was brought up as a subdivision that was already subdivided and already blatted out.

Um I did not see anything in our files.

I all I could see were commercial.

And we did were approached and we have continually been approached by individuals that have wanted to purchase it for commercial uses for daycares, lighter uses, and et cetera.

So I think that that's we kind of went with what people were wanting to develop there.

Um I I do hear the concerns of the community.

I have taken them to heart again joining Perry Homes a year and a half ago and looking at this property and what we could do with it, it being held in the commercial segment of our company, and then me having it on the residential side to say, okay, what can I review of all the comments historically that have come on this piece and what can I do to write be sensitive towards all those comments?

I tried to do the best that I could to find it's I I wouldn't communicate that it's a money play.

I know it keeps being presented that way, and I do want to also communicate that uh there continues to be a perpetuation of an understanding that this is gonna devalue their homes and take their property right values down, and I just want whatever education that can be done to show that that doesn't I think would be helpful.

Okay.

Is that something you can speak to?

Um I have received copies of the engineering reports again that the residents provided to me.

Uh I'm happy to continue to incorporate all of that and make sure that the drainage that we put in place for what is developed accommodates anything and addresses any concerns, so that's not a burden upon the neighborhood.

Well I fired all my questions off.

Anyone else on the commission?

Is this uh you mentioned 17 town homes, but you're willing to go down to five to increase the buffer and parking?

I'm willing to decrease the like the two additional ones on the bottom, so to go from the 14 that we're showing.

So even though the zoning category that's being tied to from a general plan perspective allows for up to that.

Um we're not wanting to do that many.

Um we had proposed 14, I'm willing to go down to 12.

Um again to incorporate additional area to incorporate additional parking.

I was in the neighborhood.

The numbers of cars that are parked at those single family residential homes are more than I've ever seen in any of our townhome communities.

Then why I mean are you have you guys looked?

I'm sure you have.

You looked at doing just four residential homes in there or three residential homes to fit the neighborhood.

Why is that not being brought today?

You know, I I again I can I can take that back.

Uh I was trying to look at this, and what would be the best use instead of building those four homes and putting all their there is infrastructure costs and everything that are tied, there is improvements that need to be tied into Bull River.

So as a means to try and make sure that all of the appropriate infrastructure is completed.

Um again, I was just trying to respond to all the comments from visual to landscaping.

You don't get the same landscaping and buffer areas that we could provide as part of this.

So I was just trying trying to find a median ground.

Good.

I just wanted to address one thing.

I mean, yes, you could put four homes here.

Yes, there could be up to eight with ADUs.

So you're asking for essentially 50% above that, right?

However, you're really asking for 200% above that, because you're looking at four.

Right?

So four to twelve is two hundred percent increase on the character of the neighborhood.

Had you asked for eight, I might be in a position personally to be more like, okay, because technically they could have up to eight units, eight different units in this location when it comes to ADUs.

Asking for 12 does feel like an overreach.

It does feel like for me, I'm not trying to speak for everybody up here, but for me that does feel like a stark change in the character of the neighborhood, a stark change in what they could have thought possibly was there.

And again, nobody even thought that the city or the state uh would mandate the eight would even be allowed there, right?

But they have um done that.

And so again, I it does feel like a stretch, does feel like an overreach.

I also want to say there were questions of I think one of the online comments in particular said, why do we allow a developer to do this?

Anyone can do this.

Anyone can ask for permission.

And I don't I don't want to ever give anybody the thought that they can't, right?

You own the land, you can ask.

Um it's up to us and also your elected officials to make the decision on this.

We're uh recommending body.

I'm not leaning towards a recommendation, right?

I'm I'm leaning the other direction.

I feel like it's an overgrab personally, but you have an opportunity to ask, and there's a mechanism to do it.

It's built into our code, and I applaud anybody that wants to look at opportunities of what they can do with their lands.

So again, I I disagree with the sentiment from the comment online that says why why do we allow it?

Because this is what our code allows.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um I ask a question of staff.

Please.

Uh Gary, can you help me understand about uh Bull River Highway and um what's going on up there and why are we having why why are what's going on?

Why is it so small?

And why are there speech what's what's happening?

Um the master transportation plan shows that being the 32 foot as 32 foot asphalt width road, which is just a residential road.

That's what's on the master plan right now.

Much of it hasn't been built out with the curb and gutter on either side.

Um so it does feel small.

It's just like a little ribbon road right now, really.

But I think when the curbing guiders put on both sides, it will feel like a bigger road.

I was trying to look up the traffic counts too.

I can't pull them up for whatever reason.

So I don't know if there's been traffic studies done on that or not.

I can't speak to that.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

A follow-up to that one.

So typically when somebody comes in and builds a development, they're the required to put in curb and gutter and fill that road in.

But a lot of these homes.

I don't know.

Maybe I should zoom in before I say too much.

Well, it does look like some of them do have Kerman gutter.

So the Perry would be required to do curb and gutter.

But what about the north side of the road?

That would be the city's responsibility to curb and gutter.

I think in this case it would be, yeah.

Yeah, they're only required to do it on their on their roads.

Yeah.

And are there plans for that?

Is there a I think eventually, but I don't know the timing on that.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't think the city owns the North Side from what I'm seeing.

It's the Prover Provo River Water Users Association.

So there's probably some complexities.

And I'm just with the um different governmental entities and who's responsible for what I'm guessing that's quite the conversation to be a part of.

I think you're right.

But that's probably why the North Side hasn't been properly addressed at this point.

But I'm sure I'm sure you you know far more about that than I do.

So well uh first and foremost, I really am grateful to see a community that's this engaged.

Um as we deliberate here, uh I have run out of places to take notes tonight.

Should have been a notepad night.

Uh sometimes I think to do that in advance, and sometimes I don't.

Uh so forgive me for not being able to call out uh every thought and question connected to the individual.

Sometimes I caught your names, sometimes I didn't.

Um when we have topics like this, particularly ones that are kind of like a bad case of psoriasis, this keeps coming up, you know.

And I get the the sense that this neighborhood feels that here.

Um I do go into uh my professor mode a little bit, uh teach at UVU and uh want to just help educate a little bit on some on things that are you know factors that that come into it so that you're all the better you know aware of what gets weighed and how decisions get made.

Um first of all, uh uh as as Tyson said, um the uh why do these applications you know get considered in the first place.

Um you know it's uh it's not for the city to um decide if an application comes.

We can make decisions about the application.

Uh but that gets to uh frankly, that's basic constitutional right um in terms of your your property and being able to develop it.

We came up with zoning mostly in the 20th century to put some limits on that.

Uh uh largely growing out of skyscrapers in New York, um blocking all sunlight off from the street was was the fear.

So we invented zoning, uh realizing that in an industrial world we live on top of each other so much we had to actually start thinking about the way one property might impact the adjoining property.

Um they can apply, uh they can apply once a year if if this is uh no tonight, uh Perry Holmes has uh and that goes to city code.

That's where that limit is at.

So they can't just keep applying for the same thing.

If they want to bring a similar concept, they'd need to wait uh a year.

And if they want to bring an entirely different concept, uh my understanding is that they could do more uh pressingly.

Yeah, yeah, we we could be back here, uh you know, same bat time, same bat channel, uh different episode.

Uh so um that's that's how it comes up.

Um there's some some legacy issues uh here that I that clearly predate Lindsay.

Um I also just want to compliment Alan.

I'm I apologize I didn't catch your last name.

Um you were the first one to to comment.

Uh it was a very uh uh code and uh general plan based comment.

And uh there are lots of things that uh were were discussed that um we we understand and it's fine to bring it up.

They can't from a legal sense really have much value in what our decision is at the end of the day.

For instance, uh views that has zero legal standing.

A uh burned into my memory night uh uh sitting here several years ago when I was first placed on the commission was uh a gentleman who lives a little bit north of you.

The guy paid a premium of some 30 grand for uh for his lot promised by the realtor.

He had this beautiful, gorgeous view.

And now it was being developed.

It was being developed within the code, uh you know, within the general plan.

Uh no, there's there's no legal recourse for the city to say no in that situation.

And um I just felt for this guy.

He totally got ripped off by uh a realtor who either uh didn't know what he's talking about or had no problem lying.

Uh and I realize that that is the place that you know sometimes residents get caught.

So when we have nights like this, I do like to make sure you're aware, you know, caveat and tour, right?

Um don't fall for that sort of a thing.

So uh if it fits within the zone, then that's when we get to these more administrative uh questions.

This is not administrative, this one's legislative, because we're talking about a an actual change right to what has been planned by the city, which gives us far more leeway.

Whereas administrative uh, as was the case with Mr.

Werner earlier this evening.

Uh as long as he meets the code, it wouldn't matter if everyone thought it was a terrible idea, he has the right on his property to run his business.

So just wants you to be aware of of those sorts of things.

Now, this issue um uh Alan's right about ways in which uh it does not comply with the code and Lindsay's right about ways in which it does comply uh with uh with the code and the general plan and the goals and aims of the state of uh of Utah.

Uh the state legislature uh has uh pushed in ways that have taken control from municipalities.

So where this is per currently zoned in a way that would allow for residents, uh Lindsay's right in saying uh that it could be up to eight because we cannot control ADUs.

Anyone can can build an ADU.

We used to control that.

We used to ask for applications on that, and that has been taken away.

No municipality can anyone can build an ADU uh at this point.

So just throwing all that out there since these are things that I know are on all of your minds.

Um other thing.

Please to the comments about million dollar homes next to town homes.

That's also something we don't consider, right?

That's not value of properties in that stance.

I mean, that's market value driven.

Um there was something that the developer mentioned that there are studies that show that those things do not um cause a downward pressure in valuations, which to be honest is true and false at the same time.

There's case studies you can find anywhere, right?

You can cherry pick the information you want.

Um in our city historically, it has not shown to cause a depression in value, but that does not mean it won't cause a depression in value.

So Mr.

Chair, if I may just express my thoughts and feelings on this.

Um this is why, you know, frankly, Lehigh residents have one thing to count on, and that's the general plan, which is why we spend countless hours and resources um revisiting it and looking at it every so often.

Um there was a comment made by a member of the public about an island, and I couldn't agree more.

I do not like seeing islands of the of high density or of any other use on our general plan, and this um application would do just that, and I take major issue with that.

Um there the they've got one thing to count on, and that's the general plan.

And the threshold for changing the general plan should be incredibly high because people have in have made choices based on a plan that they should be able to count on.

And um I would like to um encourage the commission to honor um honor the general plan this evening and reject this application and tell the city council that we do not recommend it.

And with that, unless there's other comments, I'm happy to make a motion.

Our way.

Okay, on item 3.5 hearing and recommendation of Perry Development's request for review of the Bull River Road General Plan amendment on 1.48 acres located at approximately 400 West Bull River Road, changing the land use designation from LDR, low density residential to HDR, high density residential.

I move that we um offer a negative recommendation to the city council with the findings that the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the purposes, intent and provisions of the general plan and its various elements, and that it is that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the land uses and zoning of nearby and adjoining properties.

Um and I would like to include all DRC comments.

The second thing.

Motion is second.

All is in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Thank you all very much.

Um, yeah, if I may this is gonna go on to City Council.

And um what is likely to happen there if you if you've been watching council meetings is a discussion of a developer agreement.

Please activate and get very comfortable with those council members and let them know because a development agreement, they can go around the code and the general plan and make a unique circumstance for applicants.

So I would encourage all the residents here tonight to activate and get to know your council members and let them know how you feel about that.

And I guess I'll add on that if uh you'd like to see the municipalities having more control again and talk to your state legislatures.

They're the ones who've kicked that door open.

All right.

Bathroom break.

And this item will go to city council on Tuesday.

What was it?

October 14th.

So Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we take a five-minute bathroom break.

And if granted a promise that uh we will not extend beyond 9 12, we will get back at 9 12.

Second.

Motion second, all is in favor.

Okay.

Um so as we go into item 3.6.

Uh I would like to make a request.

Staff that uh as you present it.

Uh this one has been through the ringer.

Would you please recount uh the history of its evolution, it's from former forms um for the benefit of those who are present.

I I realize I'm putting you on the spot, so to the extent that you can't, that's also okay.

But um it would I think it'd be worth worth uh getting into that a bit.

Okay, I'll try and give a little bit of the history, and then I think Katie has information on tonight's draft.

So um this originated the state requires all cities to have a moderate income housing plan, and within that plan there are certain number of I of goals that you have to identify and be actively working on.

So we did set a goal, I think it was about two years ago, to look at some kind of a housing overlay or some kind of a zoning tool or mechanism that could encourage affordable housing.

The original draft um we the acronym was CHAWS, which I honestly I'm trying I I would be hard pressed to remember.

Um critical housing CH overlay zone, critical housing overlay zone.

That is it.

Okay.

Hold on.

That earlier version, that original version was intended to be an overlay, but we were going to identify specific areas within the city that that could be applied to.

So we would ahead of time based on utilities and things, we would identify areas that might have additional infrastructure and capacity to handle additional density above above and beyond what our general plan had.

Um I know there's been a lot of different variations on the owner occupancy requirement.

I think that original version it was in perpetuity, then it went to ten years, then it was seven.

Anyways, there's that's also been part of it that's been in flux.

I think the intermediate version was AHA's, which was attainable housing overlay zone.

Uh we made some tweaks.

I think some of that was the owner occupants requirements.

I think that was the version when we started to limit how big a house could be in the zone to actually achieve the affordability.

We were gonna limit how big what the home size was, the lot size, and then this current draft, um, which is the SHAR, um starter home attainability zone.

Uh this version is just kind of a cumulation of all the input and trying to get it to a to a spot where as you know we're trying to incorporate as much of the feedback as we could now whether we have something that you're willing to recommend or not, that's what's up for discussion.

Maybe that would be a good time to turn it over to Katie to describe more of the current ordinances.

Mr.

Chair, can I ask a question?

Yep.

I just want to be clear.

So when it was the Chaws and the A Haas, um that every single time this came before planning commission, it was negatively recommended to council.

I believe you're right.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm sorry, that's why I was laughing.

I know I know.

And if I'm remembering correctly, it was unanimously negatively recommended every time.

Yeah.

We did have uh joint planning commission and council discussion about it.

Yeah.

So yeah, this is like you said, this is rolling around time.

It's either way, you know, to the state of probably explain this or very well.

Don't like it.

City council, and support or you can recommend approval subject to certain changes that you would like to see.

But it in any uh manner that you decide to act tonight, it will have to go to city council for their final decision.

So I have one more question.

What what is the it seems like there is a time constraint for our city to comply with oh for the state reporting?

Yeah.

Um we have to report annually, and I and I don't think there's any time frame that we have to adopt this.

So when our annual report comes up, we would say here are these series of meetings.

I think as long as the state can see, okay, the city is doing something.

We're we're diligently looking into this, but there's not a deadline that you know we have to have some kind of adoption of and if we so if it goes to city council, it's denied, we'll report to the state.

This we looked at this, we explored it in depth.

It we decided not to do this, so now we'll we'll pick another goal, or we'll you know, do some other exploration of a different tool to try and create affordable housing.

So yeah, we're responding to the state with our housing crisis.

They have really pushed on cities.

They said, you know, you you really drive a lot of the housing, you know, what's available, what's zoned, please work on this, and let's see if we can come up with solutions from the cities up versus a state mandate that um, you know, I know the last legislative session there was a bill that was rolling around that said all cities will be required in all single family zones to allow multifamily housing.

So this, you know, we're I guess our preference is to try and show that we're working on affordable housing at the city level versus having the state say this is what you will do.

So we're kind of in that we're stuck in that conundrum.

All right.

Um Tyson, we voted to hold off on the item.

I think that's what you remembering.

Yeah, then that that's why I used my one motion for last year.

Yeah, did we ever really vote this?

Remember that forward to city council ever?

We always talked about it.

Must have not been here that night.

Yeah.

So you must not.

Because I wouldn't remember.

It's like my most memorable evening and maybe a continuation of the history.

It did go to city council with a negative recommendation.

Yep.

They spent a lot of time discussing it.

They had some ideas and it it ended up departing so far from what had originally come through the planning commission that we felt like after their discussions, we should just really just kind of start back and bring it back through so that everyone had a fair view of the current draft of the um and with that.

Yeah, I was I need to present.

Yeah, yeah.

Just so we can have proper present.

Let's do it.

Um, item 3.6 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of the starter home attainable residential ordinance creating an opportunity for development of small single family homes.

Uh this is a voluntary ordinance.

Uh the landowner is not required to pursue um this overlay.

The only zones this would be allowed in would be the R3, R2, R1 Flex, R18, R110, and R112 zones.

The ordinance would allow for a hundred and fifty percent density bonus, um, which in the example in the report, if a um parcel could have four units, they could apply for up to six um under this this ordinance.

All lots would also have to meet the requirements of the attainable units as outlined in the ordinance.

Include that the lots must be less than 6,000 square feet.

The homes shall be less than 1,200 square feet if they don't include a basement, and then 1,000 square feet if they do include a basement, and that the homes shall be owner occupied, and that the homes should be sold at 400,000 or less.

In terms of like procedures and processes, the applicant will submit a concept plan that would be reviewed by city staff and then city council.

If council directs staff to write a development agreement for the proposed SHAR development, the concept plan with the development agreement will have a public hearing at planning commission and then review by the city council.

Please include them in your motion.

This is a legislative item.

And then the city council will ultimately decide if this ordinance is uh passed or not.

There were uh two online comments for this, which I can read during public hearing.

Um this is a public hearing item, so with that turns back to the commission.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

Jumping the gun here.

No, no, far away.

Okay, so just uh for the sake of simplicity when you talk about the zones.

I'm hearing R3 and R2, which is high density residential and medium density residential.

Um can you help just so that we're clear?

Yeah, I can I can pull up the table here.

Yes, that would be awesome.

Just for a nice vision.

And I think it would provide benefit for the residents to know exactly what those are.

Let me just so yeah, the zones that it would affect would be um everything on this end all the way up to R112, R115 and above to like the larger half acre lots, it would not apply to.

So, what is the size of an R112 lot?

Uh 12,000 square feet.

Okay.

So anything that and less could apply for this.

Okay.

Please.

Do you know approximately how many of these zones are left in the city?

Um in terms of like able to be developed.

Who is there still land out there that's zoned for this that people could take advantage of?

Developers could take advantage of.

Yeah.

Um, there are.

I think part of the intent of this is to also help with like infill development in those higher density zones.

Um, but there's not um we don't have like an exact count.

We haven't done like a map analysis unfight yet.

Oh, my map's not working.

Um may I ask another question?

Yep.

So that's the 12,000 square feet is roughly roughly quarter acre lots.

Um in the item before, that parcel that we were discussing could be considered infill.

Are and from what I was looking at on the parcel map, it's around those homes were around quarter acre lots.

I just want to for because we have a lot of members in the audience today who are up here for that item, what this overlay would essentially do is allow 150% density on that infill section in that kind of neighborhood.

And I'm just trying to give clarity so that they understand how how applicable this could be for a developer, like the for the developer on the last item to come in and ask for.

Correct.

Yeah, and in that case, since um you know the previous parcel was designated as LDR, um, that same it's kind of the same example as in the report, you know, it's that four units an acre, and they could go up to six in that case.

So I also think it'd be beneficial to talk about overlays versus zoning.

So when there what are the rights or entitlements when there's an overlay option for someone versus just what the zoning and general plan shows?

Yeah.

When it goes into an overlay like this ordinance would come, then it goes back to that legislative.

You they can still they could develop their land under the base zoning, if say it's zoned R110, they have the right to develop at R110 if they want to invoke this affordable housing tool, then they would have to go through this development agreement process, which puts it back into that legislative realm.

The city could say, yes, we like your proposal or no we don't, and just stay with your traditional zoning.

Okay, so the overlay option.

Because when when I hear overlay, I'm I'm seeing somewhat of like a yellow light, almost like a green light for a developer because it's it's a part of our code and it's an option for them, and it can go on top of the general plan.

To me, as a developer, if if I was in that instance, I would I would say, well, this is within the code and it's an overlay applicable to my lot.

How could what are the grounds that city council could use to say no?

Um the way the ordinance is written itself, it does describe it that it that it requires the development agreement, which then you know that both parties have to agree if the city doesn't want to agree, they don't have to.

I think maybe a good way to to think of this in your mind is this would be very much like PRDs or PUDs.

So that tool exists, it sits there in our development code.

Somebody who has property could ask for those, you know, uh PUDs where you have private open space and you you shrink the lot size so it's no longer conforming to that traditional zoning, which is how we've gotten a lot of our park spaces under the PRD.

But it this is the same thing.

They could that the tool is there, they can ask to implement that tool, but we have the right and the discretion it puts into that legislative realm.

We can just say, no, we're not interested.

This isn't the right place, or the infrastructure may be limited, which um this does it would apply citywide in any of those zones that we've talked about versus the older versions where we were gonna try and pre-identify certain areas.

So it is very much just like the PRD and PUD zoning tools that we currently have.

Okay, thank you for the clarity.

So if it is similar to the PRDP, are we duplicating what's already on the books?

Uh I would say this has a totally different outcome.

This doesn't require open space.

It does require the smaller lots, it requires the smaller home sizes.

So the way that this tool is, you know, it's like a hammer versus a screwdriver, they have totally different functions, and this one is to create affordable housing.

So everything that this allows is geared towards that versus a PRD or a PUD, it's all about open space and creative development layouts and things like that.

So two different tools, similar the way they function, but different uh purposes.

Again, that affordability is being created via deed restriction, yes.

Yeah, it does also require um owner occupancy and the the deed restrictions that we've talked about at earlier meetings.

Any other questions for staff?

Slash the applicant.

I did have a question earlier just about the owner occupation.

I did find it in there.

It is it is listed there because that's something that we talked about a lot.

For some reason I thought that that had been omitted, but it's it's clearly there in uh number number eight under I don't know what page I'm on.

But anyway, it's there.

Um I don't love the way that it's written in the packet.

Uh not the not the pages of the actual code change here, but in the packet it says they are to receive a bonus of 150%.

It then clarifies what that means.

But that sounds like a hundred and fifty percent increase of what is allowed, but really ultimately it's a 50% increase of what is allowed.

So I don't like the verbiage that was given to us in the packet, it definitely raised alarms.

Um you're talking about in the report.

In the report, sorry, yes.

I I say packet, and I know all of this is in the packet, but the the analysis, the report analysis.

Um I did have a question, and maybe this is better to ask after public comment, but I'll I'll ask it now and we can decide to talk about it after if you'd like.

Um can we truly limit an ADU on these properties?

Then how?

How is the state not going to come back and say, oh, today you have that power, but tomorrow you don't?

You want me to answer?

Yeah.

So we can't limit them on this if they're if the lot size is greater than six thousand square feet.

That's why we have the six thousand.

They the affordable lots have to be below six thousand.

So because the state code says all cities must allow ADUs on lots greater than six.

So that's how we do it.

We just say, okay, you're if you're gonna build the affordable lots, they have to be under six thousand square feet.

So and then also rounding, I don't love the term rounding up to the nearest hole number.

That means if it's 5.1, we're going to six.

That's that's the definition of rounding up to the nearest home number.

5.1 to me should round to five.

5.5 should round to six, right?

So up just needs to be.

I think it should take the word up out.

And it should just say rounded to the nearest whole number.

Do you guys disagree?

Agree or whatever.

But we can change that.

That was my thought.

Okay.

Why aren't ADUs not allowed in this ISO?

Let's say loss.

Yeah.

Oh, what so why do this?

Well it just says, you know, the ADUs won't be allowed in the Yeah, it's just because of that state code when the state passed a law that said cities have to allow ADUs, but they just said in single family homes on lots greater than six thousand.

So it's the state that it that limited that.

So it's the state saying that they lots that are greater than six thousand square feet.

You have to allow you have to allow.

But they're saying we can't allow them less than that.

Yeah.

So we're saying we won't allow them on those smaller lots.

I'm just wondering why why, what's the reasoning behind that?

Um I think it's just so that we know that they're not going to have these affordable units and have an accessory dwelling unit inside that affordable unit because part of and that's partly how we got to that 50% additional because we have to assume if if this was all standard lots, they might all have an ADU or half of them might have an ADU, I guess, is the 50%.

So but by requiring the lots to be smaller than six, then we know they can't have the ADU in those affordable units.

So it so then we know it's only one unit, not a unit plus the ADU.

Right.

Because my thought is, you know, if I'm it's a great way to help me pay my mortgage if I have renters in the basement.

Or if I live in the basement and my renters are upstairs, I can charge more.

Yeah.

So I'm just thinking affordability wise.

Yeah.

It's I don't I'd uh I'm not sure if I like limiting that or not.

Yeah.

And that's why the house size is limited to, you know, certain size for Rambler, certain size for two story, the maximum house price can't can't exceed 400,000 unless they there is some, I guess, negotiation in that 400,000 number, like if they can show this, you know, whatever the market, but we have to, again, that has to be in a development agreement, and it would all have to be agreed to.

There's no there's no way somebody could just say, I own this land, I'm gonna invoke this zoning tool, and I'm I'm gonna sell these homes for 480,000 just because I think that's more what the market is.

We have to agree to all that in a development agreement.

It's gonna be incredibly difficult to control the the price.

Yeah.

I mean you know, inflation is what it is, it's going under 400,000.

I don't I think from what I heard last week, there's like two properties in all of Utah County.

Yeah, yeah, it's under 400,000.

Very rare.

Single family homes.

Mr.

Shrek, can I ask another question?

Sure.

So this we have um like a density map or or areas that we've allocated density.

How does this overlay intersect with the density map that we have and are we compromising that?

Um I'll try and answer and then maybe Gary from the engineering side.

But so again, um, you know the way we've planned our utilities, we the engineering staff took our general plan and they said, okay, here's your high, medium, low densities, commercial.

Each one of those has a certain maximum density, and they've always planned for the maximum.

You know, kind of a I don't know if you say worst case scenario or best case, depending on if you want more housing or not.

Uh but in addition to that, they've got a factor in there now for the ADUs that they that their assumption is at some point, you know, when we build out and the city kind of reaches this equilibrium and there's no more land to develop, probably about half of all of our lots that qualify for an ADU will have one.

And so that's where there's this, you know, additional capacity that they're trying to keep on reserve for those ADU units.

And so that's where but but again, there may be areas of town where there it's so tight that you know, and they have to assume some will have ADUs.

If somebody proposes this overlay, they may just say, sorry, you know, from a utility, an engineering standpoint, this doesn't work.

They may everybody might love the idea of this is the perfect spot to create affordable housing, but if they say no go on the utilities, then we could yeah, and on that it just like leads me to believe that because anything can be done with time and money, right?

So engineers love to say, well, we could do that, right?

Engineer the solution.

Yeah, they're dreamers and builders.

Um but the impact that's a dreamer.

The impact that these additional units would have on the system, the developer would then be required to pay for that impact through you know, through the impact fee, right?

And I don't think that that it's gonna make these developments really hard to pencil out, right?

Like, how can the developer afford to pay for the in the increased impact they're having on a system that wasn't designed for increased density in these areas and sell homes at 400,000?

I I I just the I'm I'm feeling like this do who will use this overlay?

Wonderful.

It we've set it up within maybe that's maybe that's the quiet part out loud.

But I um I'm just I'm looking at this from like an impact fee perspective and trying to see how the impact wouldn't fees wouldn't be outrageously high.

Um I don't know that the impact fees would change from what our current city standards are.

When the utilities were designed for each area, they were designed, like as Kim said, for about 50% increase is what they were designed for.

That's one of the reasons actually that we when the engineering department's gone through a pretty extensive analysis of this, and what if we took this zone and they got 50%?

What if we did this zone?

How many homes that would be and what that would do to the utility system?

That's why we limited it to the zones we did and limited it to the six thousand so that the bonus lots didn't also get a uh an ADU on there because some of the smaller zones would have a lot of units on there and bump it way up above 50 percent, and then we'd have a problem.

So that's why we kind of limited it the way we did to the 6,000.

Okay, okay.

Is it possible for a developer or a landowner or whoever to stack a SHAR with a PDU?

So they're getting the bonus from the SHAR, they're getting the bonus from the PDU as well.

Could they stack those the way that this is written?

That's a great question.

Uh the intent is no.

These operate independently.

We explore the unintended.

That we it it probably should be stated at least exclusively, this these function independently.

And I think the way that the SHAR is set up, I think it would be hard, but yeah, because you'd have the open space requirement now that you're dealing with and then those those smaller lots.

I don't think you'd ever reach 20% open space plus the 6,000 square foot lots plus the traditional lots.

But yeah, well, that's a good thing it's not six thousand square, it's less than six thousand square foot.

Yeah, sorry, under six thousand.

Yeah, we should be clear about that.

So yeah, I mean that's a fair point.

Maybe we need to.

I think it should be written that they are independent of each other.

Yeah, it can only be applied uh without any other overlay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any uh other questions or uh ongoing commentary for still.

Sorry, one other question.

And it forgive me, I probably should have read that a little more thorough in here, but is it limited to single family house?

Could it be a townhome complex?

Okay.

Yeah, it's limited to uh detached single family.

Detached single family house.

Yeah.

Very well.

Sorry.

No.

Do you have nothing to apologize for?

So we're here to do any other questions at this point for staff.

All right.

Well, this is a public hearing.

So if there's anyone from the public like to speak to this item.

Now's the time.

So I love that what we just learned that we just need to provide lip service to the state.

State your name for the record, please.

Oh, Kenneth Glen, yeah.

Thank you, sir.

Carry on.

Uh I love that we can just provide lip service.

We can just write up these reports.

We can just send them the state, hey, we're working on it, we're working on it.

Let's just delay, delay, delay.

We'll we'll figure this out.

We've been told over and over and over that they're putting so much pressure on us, we gotta do something.

Well, let's just do something then.

Let's give them the report that they want.

Let's write it up.

And let's go on with our business, right?

We don't have to screw up our city in order to appease these people when we can just write them uh report, right?

So the other part here is when Brittany was originally proposing this long time ago, dear comrades were here, Paul Hancock and and Heather Newell proposed this, right?

Um they were the ones that are wrote it in secret for 11 months.

You guys were here.

That's what they to said.

Um Brittany said specifically, we cannot have a situation where we're doing pockets here and pockets there.

We have to have it over the whole city.

And the reason why we have to have it over this whole city is because we need to get the land at a cheaper rate.

The whole reason we can have these developments come through is we have to get the land at a cheaper rate, right?

So if somebody, a developer comes through and they buy this land when it's valued or it's at a half acre a lot, back then it was half acre, whatever what we were talking about, and then they get the bonus density, then that's how we get the value, and we pass that on.

We have transfer the value because we stole it from the property owner.

We stole it from them, helping the city help steal the property.

That's that's exactly what's happening, from the current landowner, transferring the value to a developer so they can make more profit.

And all the while we're trying to say, oh, that's how we're getting the process prices down.

We're not saying, hey, the developer's gonna give any into this, they're not gonna make their fees lower.

We're not saying the city's gonna lower the impact fees.

We're not doing anything like that.

The whole way we're able to do this is by getting the property undervalued by stealing it from current residents.

And after we steal it from current residents, we go behind closed doors in this meeting and have say, oh, now you get this development agreement, now you can have this agreement, now we're gonna give you more bonus density, right?

And that's how they get cheaper property and more density.

So then that's how this pencils out for the developer so they can build more homes, right?

And we're again, they didn't have to put anything into this.

They're not taking lower fees, they're not taking less payout.

In fact, they're taking more because they're gonna build more homes, and that's how they make their money.

And so we're stealing from all these communities, like my community, we put in years and years of development, millions and millions of our own dollars into the community, and a developer shows up and says, Hey, this is a beautiful community.

I want to steal value from everybody in this community.

How do they do that?

By something like this, by an overlay that goes in and says, hey, we know that all those property owners bought with this understanding.

We don't want those property owners, those Lehigh residents that make this city great, we don't want them to benefit.

We want us to benefit.

We're gonna steal value from everybody that's gone before us that's lived here that put into the community, and we are gonna bring it to our property, and the city is codifying this.

And that should be appalling to everybody here.

We should not be codifying this.

In fact, we're going to have to create a housing authority to manage this, and so our tax dollars are now gonna have to manage a program to give more money to developers, right?

So the Lehigh City taxes, paying for developer programs so they can make more money.

Now, this is from so many angles, ugly and disgusting that this is just common sense.

Uh and remember, when we do that, you're saying now they've gone away from the the whole city, now it's gonna go into pockets.

So let's apply a little common sense here.

Say we're gonna go over here into this neighborhood, and we're going to give this this overlay to this neighborhood over here.

What happens to every single property in that neighborhood if it was public knowledge?

The property values are gonna go up.

Why?

Because they know they can get a bonus density, like you said, they get the green light.

The developers know, hey, I can just show up.

I don't have to go to have a public meeting about this anymore.

I just show up and in and I make this agreement with the city because now I get the density, right?

So everybody that owns property in that development goes, hey, I can get bonus density on my property.

So from now on, anybody that wants to buy my property, that property goes up in value.

So you've just kneecapped your whole program at that at that point in time.

That's why they have Brittany said so strongly in the very beginning, we have to have this be a whole citywide program, so then we can steal value from unsuspecting residents from current residents, because we don't like current residents.

We only want to think about future residents, is what it felt like.

Right?

So this is so bad on so many levels.

Please, like you've done in the past, give this a negative recommendation with the strongest of terms, so that we can come back here in six more months, give lip service again to this, send it to the state and say, Dear Lord, we have done what thou hast asked.

We have had these meetings, and our city has once again rejected it.

But we will try again.

And if we give lip service, then that's what we need to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public like to speak to this item?

Hi, good evening.

I'm my name is Laura Stevens.

I'm just a regular average resident here in Lehigh.

So I like I'm not an expert in this.

But I reviewed it.

And these were just some of my concerns.

Are more eligible for state transportation investments.

So I mean, we could use help with transportation in our in our city.

You've already said that.

It isn't actually affordable in my opinion.

Very few young adults that I know want to get in that would want to get in a home would be able to afford that.

Also, Shar lacks transparency because developers don't have to disclose up front if they'll use it.

Density can change after purchase affordability isn't enforceable, and neighbors often only learn about it after decisions are already in motion.

Elderly abuse is not a fun thing to watch.

And this leaps this leaves a lot of loopholes for that.

If this is rezoned without going through the proper channels, our city has less negotiating power to provide infrastructure that we desperately need.

So in my view, this overly reduces transparent transparency at a time when residents are asking for more openness and not less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I bet you're happy to see me, aren't you?

Always.

Larry Hadfield.

My problem is with this overlay is you've got how you've got lots.

Kim, you said there are 6,000 square foot lots.

Less.

Or less.

There's houses that are bigger than that in Lehigh, and we all know that.

And that worries me because it doesn't have the we don't have the the yards or the places for kids to play.

Now, behind my property, we have the sports park.

And there that's still, I don't know how far along that's that's plan, maybe you guys could tell me.

But I uh I've been waiting for them to put that in.

But if you're uh if you've got a uh giant sports park like that, but you're still requiring 20%, wasn't it 20% of the uh of whatever the development was for open space?

Uh you know, I I think it's kind of a contradiction on that, you know.

So uh why can you why why give do I give 20% have to have 20% in the subdivision when you've got a sports park behind me?

Now, what bothers me this last time I was be here before you is you is you put the overlay over the whole city, and I don't know why why that was necessary to do that, because it opened up everybody to to put these smaller lots in.

And I it just worries me that we're just gonna have a whole city of small lots with no place to play other than the 20% that maybe maybe the kids know there's there's several parks down in my area, not in the lower part of Lehigh.

The other night when we when we came out well during church, you know, we came out of church and there was skid marks all through the park where the where kids had gone through there and run race their cars and uh basically vandalized it.

Uh and I it just I think sometimes we open ourselves up to problems we don't we don't really need in this city by by people be by pending people up and not having a decent sized lots that they can they can garden and they can take care of.

And I just hope that we can look at this and keep the same size lots that people uh can take to take pride in, and they won't be they won't be moving out of it uh it every you know every every few years just because they can afford a bigger and a better house.

But I don't think uh six thousand acres uh six thousand acres.

I wish I had that.

But six thousand foot square foot lot is big enough to to uh to for a family to exercise and do what they want.

Thanks.

There's probably other things I'll I I'll remember when I sit down.

So thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Abfield.

Anyone else?

Hey, uh Marshall Gary again.

Um I wanna I I have some questions, some concerns, some suggestions.

Big thing I want to do is challenge everyone present to challenge their own thinking and to uh try to challenge themselves to learn more.

Um hang on, just uh I'm grabbing a couple books.

Go for it.

So I love learning.

Um want you to know that I'm not coming in here completely ignorant.

These are a couple of books I really like about housing.

Highly recommend.

Um the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

And I feel like I've learned a lot about housing, and I feel like I've barely touched the surface.

If you don't feel like that, then I you should challenge yourself to learn more.

Um I've also read the actual ordinance document.

Um anyway, big highlights.

Thank you for working on housing.

Um my comments on the last iteration basically boils down to housing's hard.

Um it's really expensive.

And we we care about our kids.

You saw my daughter here earlier.

We ought to work on it.

Um second big point is learn what's working, learn from other cities about what's working.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

That's kind of what I feel like this is.

This whole process is trying to invent something that feels clumsy and doesn't feel like it's gonna work very well.

Um learn from the incremental developers, their challenges and what works, um, the incremental development alliance.

What's a developer?

What's an incremental developer?

Well, every person here present has a potential to be an incremental developer.

So a lot of times when you hear the word developer, it's really negative.

But everyone here could be an incremental developer.

Just addressing their own housing needs.

So let's give them some tools to be able to do that.

Um Strong Towns has a toolkit.

I encourage you to look at it, strongtowns.org for making uh housing legal, it making it legal to be incremental developers to do incremental development.

They also are soon releasing a new toolkit of fostering an ecosystem of incremental developers.

Um early access because I'm a member.

Um it's 26 pages great document about how do you help people actually get this done.

So now some questions about this and big concern is basically I think it it's feels like it's really restrictive and it's gonna be really difficult to meet all the requirements and not very practical and not very scalable.

So let me just shoot off some questions really fast.

Um why only detached units?

Why not for like say up to four attached units?

Um what does the minimum frontage of 50 feet mean?

Uh rear setback requirements.

20 feet after two years, 15 feet.

Why?

I know you had a debate about this.

Commissioner Lockhart told me a little bit about that.

I don't know what the result of that debate was, but let's just set it to 15 feet in the rear from the get-go.

Um only for sale, and why not for rent?

Another person came up here and said 400,000 that's unaffordable for a lot of people.

I bought my condo in Lehigh for 340,000.

Um 400,000 even does feel like it would have been a lot for me.

Uh when my wife and I were first married, there's no way we could have afforded to buy anything.

We just couldn't, we didn't have the capital for all the fees and stuff, let alone you know the big mortgage and down payment and everything.

We were able to rent for $800 a month.

And that was really great.

So low rents can really help with affordability, so why is this only for purchase?

I know there's a note in there with concerns about investment properties, but if there's a concern there, let's address that concern and not do some other way similar to my comment about parking earlier.

Let's address the real concern instead of like try to do some clumsy roundabout way of addressing it.

Um where did the number 400,000 come from?

Also have a concern about that being set in stone.

Uh and I know there's like some language there with the city council being able to talk about it.

But like I feel like a percentage number makes more sense.

Um that can change as the market changes.

Uh public hearing, that's not gonna scale.

This requires a public hearing.

How many public hearings can this like the city council manage for this?

If you have a hundred applicants in New York, can a city council even do that?

How long are people gonna have to wait?

Uh big developers can get through all the red tape and lot afford long delays and stuff.

Incremental developers really struggle with all the red tape, and delays kill their projects.

I also went to uh the incremental development alliance workshop in Rhode Island this summer.

Um yeah, delays kill those projects.

So like requiring public hearings for everything.

I I'm not in love with an overlay.

I'd rather it just be this is what it is.

Um there are lots of success stories.

Uh the Strong Towns website has with their housing toolkit, they have a map, lots of success stories you can read, read about it.

It's it's really awesome.

And the success stories, it's local people helping themselves.

You know, we're not big evil developers.

We're just average Joes and Janes here, and the yeah.

Anyway, example, South Bend, Indiana.

Over 30 incremental developers are working on 40 million dollars worth of projects, and that's capital that locals are getting.

Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public?

All right.

Then we'll go ahead.

Oh, yes.

Go ahead and do online comments.

There are just two.

Um from Megalyn Sayer.

Uh, this would be a godsend to so many of us who live in apartments, multi-generational no less.

And from Leah Ludman, uh Bud Lamb.

Uh this is amazing.

Uh great proposal to fill the missing middle in Lehigh.

That's it.

Very good.

All right, with that we'll go ahead and close public comment.

Um let me just say uh.

Mr.

Habfield, the the the day that we're not excited to hear from you, I just don't see that comment.

Uh I hope uh everyone here realizes that.

It's not just lip service.

I appreciate hearing from all of you.

Uh I appreciate hearing from you when I don't agree with you.

Um I know that goes for the whole commission.

Uh I will say uh Mr.

Glade, you pushed it there a little bit with the comments on Brittany Harris.

Um I appreciate you added the I feel.

Had you not that it'd been slander.

I I was close to cutting you off on that one.

Brittany Harris and I disagree on a lot of things.

I'm pretty sure she uh maybe gets a little happy when I'm not here.

I kid.

We all uh sure, fair enough.

No, no, no.

Yeah, you said the quiet part out loud.

But as much as Brittany and I have gone to the maths and will undoubtedly go to the maths.

It's always been collegial polite.

I never doubt for a second her genuine love and enthusiasm for the city for planning, even if we have different perspectives, and that's precisely what I appreciate about her.

And I'm glad we have different perspectives.

So with that commission.

I have questions.

Yep.

Where does this where does planned community fall into this?

So if there's a planned community, let's say planned community had a house.

Okay.

House burns down.

It's a total tear down.

They're now in a position as a landowner to potentially take advantage of this with info.

Are they allowed to?

No, so it only applies to those specific residential zones.

Okay.

So planning community does not count.

Correct.

Yeah, exactly.

That wipes out a ton of the city.

Okay.

R1, RA1 as well.

No.

So we're really only talking our R112, R115, R110, R18.

Not R115.

Not R115.

I can pull it up again.

It's just 10, 8 and flex.

That's it.

So again, it but in those in those zones in an R12.

Fifth whatever number, sorry.

R1, whatever is permitted.

Yeah.

Someone chooses, maybe someone buys the lot, right, with the intent of tearing down the home and rebuilding.

But at that point, they have that opportunity to take advantage of this.

Is that correct?

Is this a subdivision opportunity?

I would say if it's a single lot, like say you own a 12,000 square foot lot, this wouldn't be able to be used.

You don't have enough property.

I mean, you've you've got what you've got, you've got one 12,000 square foot lot.

I think you'd have to, you would have to be subdividable.

Does that make sense?

Because you but you could do two lots that are less the up to less than six thousand square feet.

Have setbacks of five on one side, twelve feet on the other.

I if if you could.

I don't know the system.

Even like a flag lot.

Would your flag lot have like four of these?

I yeah.

I think it has to have some of the standard lots the way it's described, the affordable lots versus the standard are we thinking it does, or do we want to put that in there?

I'll read the draft as soon as I read it recently, but yeah.

Yeah, I just we keep saying developer, yes, this is absolutely a tool for developers, but this is a tool for owners, right?

And owner of their property.

Well, the incremental developer, too.

You know, as uh there there were comments that this is robbery from our landowners.

Uh I absolutely understand that comment, but also this is off this is an afforded opportunity to that current owner as well, right?

Um to do that.

Um I I challenge that thought a little bit.

Although I don't disagree with the sentiment of what is happening there, it's it's available to everybody, right?

If if it is there, whether they are not now granted, they may not have the means to develop, right?

They do not have the tools or the wherewithal to do that, and that's where the sell of the land takes transfer to a developer generally in these cases.

Um I don't I don't disagree with the sentiment that was there.

I'm just challenging the thought process because it is available to anybody, whether they're a developer or not.

Right?

Yeah.

Um, Mr.

Chair, there was a comment made about um these things happening in in non-public meetings or in these dark secret rooms.

The legislature actually recently passed a bill requiring all development agreements to come before planning commission.

The interesting thing about that is the planning commission doesn't have a lot of influence on those development agreements, and when I've talked to the sponsor of that bill, my understanding was that it was in an effort to provide an additional public hearing for development agreements because they wanted to increase transparency, and the planning commission wasn't was an easy avenue, right, to facilitate an an additional public hearing.

Um and so that being said, I I'm not a fan of development agreements, and and it's always we've had about three or so it come through before us since that law was passed, and I I really value the extra opportunity for the public to participate.

Um but development agreements are also passed at city council, which is an open and public meeting as well.

Um so I found that comment to um cause confusion, so I just wanted to bring some clarity and light to the process.

Um those things happen in open public meetings.

Um but there was a a fantastic comment made by someone who talked about um that these goals were tied to infrastructure funding.

And that absolutely is the case.

And um why the city I I think a lot of residents have said why would you ever consider these things?

Why would you ever put this on the table?

This is Lehigh.

And this is this is not a this doesn't have the sentiment of of our Lehigh positioning, and it is that um carrot and that the state has used, and as we that was stated and how we all feel transportation funding is so essential.

Um that being said, we have phenomenal um relationships and things where we can get that funding.

Um we don't necessarily have to pass this to get it, and um I highly doubt.

I mean in fact I'm very confident that the ultra-conservative legislature, when they passed the that law with these strategies and goals in mind, thought that Lehigh City would ever do something like this.

Um and I've mentioned that every time we've talked about this.

I do not think that this was that the intent that they were hoping for.

Um I've always looked at is that at that threat of removing transportation funding.

Um and I I don't see a lot of merit to it, and I think we can still achieve that without passing something that is so um challenging to what makes Lehigh Lehigh.

Um I'll just throw out the deed.

I think you all know that's uh that's another go for me.

I'll just reiterate that.

I find that deeply problematic.

The tying up the deed uh in such such a permanent way.

Um the most brilliant thing about our system, it's the most frustrating thing about our system, but from the federal to the state and municipal, it is our ability to be to be flexible.

And we try to build things that are very dependable.

But the Constitution's greatest most brilliant piece is you can amend this thing.

That's why it's endured longer than any other government on Earth continuously, save the state of Massachusetts.

The state of Massachusetts, so your two longest enduring straight through governments are both American.

It's the ability to adapt.

Um so that for me, the idea that you would lock this thing up with a deed that is so constitutional amendments are easier than undoing a deed restriction.

Um I think I'm being hyperbolic and I'm not even sure there.

Yeah.

I don't know.

It's on the judge.

Uh so you know that that on top of the other things, that would have to that's just a no start, a non-starter for me.

Um if there's anything else anyone else wants to say.

I think you you know where I'm at.

We can vote uh at any at any point in my mind.

Um I think uh I th well all I I think Mr.

Gary had some wonderful uh points.

I've I've heard of both of those books, haven't had a chance to read them.

I noted them.

I'm gonna get my hands on them.

So I appreciate that very much.

If you I I won't the R2 and R3, this would probably never be picked because the R2 and R3 are gonna give them more units anyway, right?

They're not gonna take this land with an R3 zone and then say, oh, let's put little tiny single family houses on it.

They'll get way more density in an R3 zone than they would with this.

So R2 and R3 being in there is laughable, right?

Um so it's really just the R1s, right?

The R1s are really the only feasible.

Not that they couldn't do it.

I mean, someone could.

If someone had an R3 zone and had an acre and or whatever, they have whatever land was available in that zone, and they're like, hey, I just don't want to build a big old complex here.

And they could use this, I guess.

But really, we're talking about the R1s and what was available there, and really those are probably the only ones where it would ever even come close to penciling.

And again, that's a stretch to come like like Commissioner Lockhart had mentioned, like putting putting that number.

400,000.

I I appreciate the sentiment of that, but what does that mean?

Why does that mean it and what does that really do to us?

And how often are we going to be changing that number um over the next 20 years, 40 years, whatever, right?

Um I struggle with with uh creating uh a piece that we know we're just gonna be changing and it will be changing constantly.

And that that's where I stand.

I I struggle with that.

I I have sympathized with the challenge that I think Brittany has kind of taken a lead on in this.

And I love the thought and the kind of the altruistic nature of providing lower in or lower cost housing.

Um and I think some of the mechanisms that we have discussed in the past of limiting lot size and limiting square footage, those are the two vehicles that absolutely drive costs down.

We've been heard uh on those things, so I applaud and appreciate that those things have come.

I just don't think it's too flawed, it's too challenging.

It's never not something I would ever at least in its current state feel comfortable about recommending to the city council.

I want to make sure that you guys have an opportunity to do that.

Yeah, what's up on the other end of the table on the other end over here?

Um I I have an issue with the price fiction, right?

Saying it's gonna be 400,000, because that's that's such a hard number to fit, and uh I would love to see a return to the 1980 style home where it's a carport, linoleum, coriander, whatever that might be.

But I just think that even that those prices are gonna go above that.

So I agree with Commissioner that saying this is what we're gonna do, it's just we're just gonna have to revisit that.

Um so I uh it's just it's messy.

I love the thought of trying to create something, you know, and um help developers use it, have a tool to do something different.

But I kind of feel like with the PRD, PRDs and the PUDs, you know, if they're required to have open space, it'd be nice to have a little bit of open space with these.

So it's already if it's already there, then why are we doing more.

Maybe I didn't understand your comment completely, but I I will say uh yeah.

Uh as uh if going back to the drawing board, I know this is more significantly the this is um the shifting acronym has each time embodied a significantly different thing, though if we were to really just tear down the whole structure.

Um, as as Ken was just saying, you know, to help developers build uh more affordable housing.

Uh just a thought, uh not not saying that you haven't done this, but these have been geared toward developers.

Uh if this started more uh on the incremental developer concept, I wonder if uh or if that was more incorporated into the thought process.

I'm just throwing something against the wall here.

You know, might might there be something that comes out of the woodwork that this commission won't find more palatable.

But I I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say I appreciate all the time.

I realize this is time and energy that that's been sunk into it, uh, even as we continue to show a lack of enthusiasm.

Cole.

You don't get out of this.

I know, yeah.

I I you take such copious notes, there's so much going through your head.

I want to hear it.

I have to write it down or I I don't learn anything.

Um but I I just don't see developers taking advantage of this.

I don't think it's going to sorry, my kids are calling me.

I don't think it's if they're if they're not gonna make money, I I don't think we can count on them taking advantage of an overlay for a smaller house when they're making money on the bigger houses.

Um I I liked Mr.

Uh Gary's suggestion that we make it a percentage rather than a dollar amount.

Um I think that's that's a better way to go.

Because that that like Tyson and Ken have said that's is just gonna keep changing all the time.

Um I I I like that we're we're working on it.

I like that we're we're trying to come up with something to help affordability, attainability.

Um lots of the same thoughts too.

I will add one other thing, if I may.

If the intent is to truly appease, to appease the the gods of the state, right?

Then yeah, let's create something that's impossible for a developer to use.

Like we did our part, state.

We did what we said we would do, but if we make it impossible to use, then why did we do it?

Well, to exactly that reason, right?

Yeah.

But if uh anyhow, uh I think this is Yeah.

You got the feedback, Kim.

Um just one final comment.

Um I agree with the deed restriction for homeowner, you know, for owner occupancy forever is going to cause um a lot it it's we cannot enforce that.

And the only way that the city of Lehigh can even try to enforce that would be to spend taxpayer dollars on employees policing or code enforcing where people live and and who owns the property, and essentially show me your ID card, and do you it it's not going to ever be a good idea to start evicting renters from these properties.

Like from a like no it it so they're not going to do it because they're not gonna want to be accused of tearing people out of their homes because they don't own it.

So the idea that we would have something in here that is completely unenforceable and then increases the size of government, increases government overreach into residents' lives, is incompatible with the values of Lehigh.

And uh at from my perspective, and I cannot support something that would do that.

Um so with that, if everyone feels heard um and has had their time, I'd love to make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Have the honors.

On item 3.6, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of the starter home attainable residential SHA ordinance, creating an opportunity for the development of small single family homes.

I move that we negatively recommend this to city council with the findings, that it is not in conformance with the general plan, and that um we'll include all DRC comments.

Second just thinking through some other things, but that's all right.

Um I mean there's a part of me that wants that's a solid thing.

It it is.

Uh there's a part of me that wants to mention just that I'm a no go in the deed ever, but it doesn't that it's fine.

Motion in a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

There you go.

Okay.

Did it again?

Um City Business.

Uh the only thing I can think of is if any of you are interested in going to the Utah chapter uh fall conference of the American Planning Association, let me know.

It's not too late to register.

I think it's uh a couple of weeks from now, October 9th and 10th.

So anyways, just let me know.

It's up in Salt Lake at the gateway.

So I think I sent information out, but yeah, that's the only thing I can think of.

Next meeting would be your work session in in October, and it would be the second half of our training.

So very good.

All right.

With no motion to adjourn.

Oh dang it.

I will second that motion.

Motion and a bit all those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Good night.